Must a judge recuse when a criminal defendant is the son of the judge’s longtime personal physician?

Plain-English summary

During a driving-under-the-influence trial, the judge learned that the defendant was the son of his personal physician of more than twenty-five years. The physician had also treated family members, and the judge was a patient of the defendant’s surgeon uncle.

The judge disclosed his relationship with the defendant’s father. He believed he could decide fairly, but worried that an acquittal would look like a favor and a conviction might affect his relationship with the doctor.

The Commission concluded that the full circumstances created a reasonable question about impartiality and that the judge was disqualified. Canon 3C(1)’s appearance standard can require recusal without actual bias.

In practice

The holding rests on the close and longstanding medical and family relationships and the judge’s stated concerns about the appearance of his ruling.

Common questions

Q: Did the judge’s belief that he could be impartial avoid recusal?

A: No. The Commission applied the reasonable appearance standard and found disqualification.

Q: How long was the physician relationship?

A: The judge had been the defendant’s father’s patient for more than twenty-five years.

Q: Did the judge disclose the relationship?

A: Yes. He disclosed his relationship with the defendant’s father to the parties.

Background and rules framework

Canon 3C(1) requires recusal when the known circumstances supply a reasonable basis to question impartiality. The opinion cites Acromag-Viking and Matter of Sheffield for that test.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C(1)

Cases:

• Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So. 2d 60 (Ala. 1982)
• Matter of Sheffield, 465 So. 2d 350 (Ala. 1984)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama Advisory Opinions 99-740 and 02-794

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 05-850: Donor to a Court Program and Recusal
• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 05-852: Former Legal-Secretary Spouse and Law Firm

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 05-851

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
DATE ISSUED: MAY 9, 2005 ADVISORY OPINION 05-851
DISQU ALIFICA TION WHEN THE
DEFENDANT IS A CLOSE RELATIVE OF
THE JUDGE'S DOCTOR
ISSUE
Is a judge disqualified to hear a particular
criminal case in which the defendant is the
child of the judge's long time personal physi·
cian? Answer: Yes.
FACTS
During the defense portion of the trial on a
charge of Driving Under the Influence, a
district judge realized that the defendant was
the son of the judge's personal physician
whom thejudgeknows verywell, havingbeen
the doctor's patient for more than twenty-five
years. The defendant's father is a family
practitioner who has also treated several
members of the judge's family, including
having been the judge's father's doctor for
more than twenty-five years. The judge is
also the patient of one of the defendant's
uncles, who is a surgeon who has treated the
judge offand on for twenty-five years, includ­
ing having performed surgery on the judge
within the last two years. The judge also
knows the defendant's paternal aunt.
The judge began to feel uncomfortable when
he realized he was trying his doctor's son. At
the conclusion ofthe testimony, the case was
taken under advisement. The relationship
with the defendant's father was disclosed to
the parties.
The judge feels his relationship with the
defendant's father has such an appearance of
closeness and confidentiality as to cast doubt
on his ability to impartially judge the case on
the facts. Although he believes he can jUdge
the case impartially, hefears that he would be
perceived as a judge who does favors for his
close friends if he finds the defendant not
guilty and, on the other hand, that his rela­
tionship with his doctor would be adversely
affected ifhe finds the defendant guilty.
DISCUSSION
Under Canon 3C(I), recusal is required when
"facts are shown which make it reasonable
for members ofthe public or a party, or coun­
sel opposed to question the impartiality ofthe
judge." Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d
60,61 (Ala. 1982). Specifically, the test under
Canon 3C(l) is: "Would a person of ordinary
prudence in the judge's position knowing all
ofthe facts known to the judge find that there
is a reasonable basis for questioning the
judge's impartiality?" Matter ofSheffzeld, 465
So.2d 350, 355-356 (Ala. 1984). The reasonable
person/appearance ofimpropriety test stated
in Canon 3C(I) sometimes disqualifies judges
who have no actual bias. Id., at 357.
Having carefully considered the facts pre­
sented, the Commission finds that there are
sufficient circumstances to create a reason­
able question as to the judge's impartiality.
See Advisory Opinions 99-740 and 02-794.
Thus, the Commission is ofthe opinion that
the judge is disqualified in the subject case.
REFERENCES
Acromag-Viking v. Blalock, 420 So.2d 60
(Ala. 1982).
Advisory Opinions 99-740 and 02-794.
Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics, Canon
3C(l).
Matter ofSheffield, 465 So.2d 350 (Ala. 1984).
This opinion is advisory only and is based on
the specific facts and questions submitted by
thejudge who requested the opinionpursuant
to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Judicial Inquiry Commission. For further
information, you may contact the Judicial
Inquiry Commission, P. O. Box 303400, Mont­
gomery, Alabama 36130·3400; tel.: (334) 242­
4089; fax: (334) 353·4043; E-mail:
[email protected].