holding recusal may be required even in summary contempt proceeding if there is “a sufficient possibility of bias to make disqualification necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary”
How later courts described this case
- holding recusal may be required even in summary contempt proceeding if there is “a sufficient possibility of bias to make disqualification necessary to preserve the integrity of the judiciary”
- "[O]nce a judge has been personally attacked in such a manner that a judge of ordinary sensibilities might naturally be expected to harbor marked personal feelings against the attacker, the law must assume that such feelings exist." (quotation marks and emphasis omitted)
- “[0]nce a judge has been personally attacked in such a manner that a judge of ordinary sensibilities might naturally be expected to harbor marked personal feelings against the attacker, the law must assume that such feelings exist.” (quotation marks and emphasis omitted)
- describing necessity for recusal when the judge “has adopted an adversary posture with respect to the alleged contemnor, as in Murchison and Johnson ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILBUR K. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I do not agree with the majority’s laborious effort to reconcile the Supreme Court’s decisions and so I cannot concur in the conclusion it draws from its efforts. Finespun theories as to when and how a trial judge reacts to contemptuous courtroom conduct do not impress me.
We should hold, I think, that the trial judge involved here had full authority to act as he did in punishing the appellant for inexcusable and outrageous behavior in the courtroom. Therefore, being of the view that the judgment appealed from should be affirmed, I dissent.