Also known as: actual biases
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An acknowledged inability of a juror or judge to remain impartial toward a party or issue in a proceeding.
Anthony Arnold attends a social gathering hosted by a recently convicted racketeer and mingles with guests tied to organized crime. No evidence shows that Anthony Arnold harbors any personal animosity or favoritism toward any party in pending matters. The associations nevertheless prompt disciplinary review of judicial conduct.
Alexis Archer faces trial amid intense television coverage that fills the courtroom with cameras and reporters. The constant publicity creates an atmosphere in which jurors may struggle to set aside preconceptions formed outside the evidence. The court examines whether any seated juror admits an inability to decide the case solely on the record.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Angela Acosta's opponent in litigation contributed millions to Judge Aaron Adams's election campaign. The judge must determine whether the extraordinary financial support has produced an acknowledged inability to remain neutral. Due process analysis focuses on whether actual bias has been admitted or demonstrated.
Amelia Amari, now a judge, previously participated as a prosecutor in a key charging decision against the defendant now appearing before her. The court assesses whether that earlier involvement has created an acknowledged inability to preside impartially. Recusal turns on whether actual bias is present.
Anita Ali stands trial after months of saturation coverage that vilifies her personally. During voir dire several prospective jurors state they cannot set aside their formed opinions. The court excuses those who acknowledge an inability to decide the case on the evidence alone, thereby screening for actual bias.
Actual bias exists when a juror acknowledges an inability to be impartial. Implied bias is presumed from circumstances that make a juror's claim of impartiality unbelievable even without an admission.
Due process requires recusal when a judge has actual bias and also when an objective appraisal shows a serious risk of actual bias, such as from extraordinary campaign support by a party.
Yes. Significant personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision in the defendant's case creates an impermissible risk of actual bias when the same judge later presides over that case.
No. A court must transfer when community prejudice is so great that a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained, without requiring proof that specific seated jurors hold actual bias.
…but this Court has also identified additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal where “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,” Withrow v. Larkin , 421 U. S. 35, 47. Two such instances place the present case in proper context.…