Did a judge become disqualified for forwarding trial documents suggesting possible crime to law enforcement?

Plain-English summary

After a civil case settled, the court retained jurisdiction over property and held the trial evidence. The judge saw possible evidence of crime in the documents and sent copies to law enforcement. A party then sought recusal for bias.

The Commission said those facts did not establish disqualifying personal bias. It cited Opinion 86-281 for the view that reporting a suspected legal violation revealed by trial evidence falls within judicial authority and does not itself impair the appearance of impartiality.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, after the Alabama Supreme Court’s 1975 adoption of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Subsequent amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify the current Canons and linked opinion before relying on its conclusions.

Common questions

Q: Did the report alone establish bias?

A: No. The Commission said the facts presented were insufficient.

Q: What earlier opinion did the Commission rely on?

A: Opinion 86-281, concerning a judge’s report of suspected crime arising from trial evidence.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 3C(1)(a) and says personal bias must be shown by evidence rather than presumed.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C
• Canon 3C(1)(a)

Other opinions cited:

• Alabama JIC Opinion 86-281, report of suspected wrongdoing based on trial evidence.

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 87-292: Past Complaint and Recusal

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 86-284
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

86-284
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
November 21, 1986
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a judge is disqualified from sitting in a proceeding under certain circumstances. Under the fact situation presented, during the course of a civil trial certain evidence was introduced. The case was later settled with the court retaining jurisdiction as to the disposal of certain property. The court ordered that all of the evidence, including certain evidence claimed by the plaintiff to have been stolen from him, be retained by the clerk. Upon examining documentary evidence, the judge recognized the possibility that they contained evidence of possible criminal conduct on behalf of one of the parties as well as others. The judge, therefore, forwarded copies of the documents to appropriate law enforcement agencies. Based on these facts one of the parties seeks the judge’s disqualification or recusal based on bias. It is the opinion of the Commission that the foregoing facts are insufficient to establish a disqualifying personal bias on the part of the judge. Judicial disqualification is governed by Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. It has long been established that personal bias under Canon 3C(l)(a) must be established by the evidence and may not be presumed. In Advisory Opinion 86-281, the Commission found that reporting a suspected violation of the law arising out of evidence adduced during a trial falls within the judicial authority of a sitting judge and that the judge’s appearance of impartiality should not be affected by such a report. Advisory Opinion 86-281 appears to be dispositive of this matter. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION