stating that a jurist’s impartiality is called into question whenever - 27 - J-S23031-21 there are factors or circumstances that may reasonably question the jurist’s impartiality in the matter; there is no need to find actual prejudice, but rather, the appearance of prejudice is sufficient to warrant the grant of new proceedings
How later courts described this case
- stating that a jurist’s impartiality is called into question whenever - 27 - J-S23031-21 there are factors or circumstances that may reasonably question the jurist’s impartiality in the matter; there is no need to find actual prejudice, but rather, the appearance of prejudice is sufficient to warrant the grant of new proceedings
- holding that counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in the law
- explaining that an “appellate court presumes judges are fair and competent, and reviews the denial of a recusal motion for an abuse of (…continued
- stating that “a party seeking recusal or disqualification must raise that issue at the earliest opportunity or be barred from obtaining appellate review of the question”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice SAYLOR,
dissenting.
While crediting the factual assertions contained in Judge Sprague’s decision on Appellant’s motion to recuse, I am nevertheless of the view that Rule 5(C)(2) of the Rules Governing the Conduct of Members of the Court of Judicial Discipline — which provides that “[a] member should not participate in a proceeding in which the member’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned” — compelled his recusal on account of his representation of Robert Powell and PA Child Care, LLC, who and which were connected to the extraordinary judicial corruption present in Luzerne County in a time period relevant to the proceedings against Appellant.