May one judge hear a divorce and related harassment cases involving the same people?

Plain-English summary

A judge asked about hearing a divorce, a harassment case the wife filed against the husband and a third person, and another harassment case the third person filed against the wife.

The Commission found no disqualification from all three cases on the stated facts. It distinguished knowledge gained through judicial work on a related case from bias arising outside the judicial process.

Under the opinion’s Canon 3C analysis, familiarity with facts from trying one matter alone did not bar the judge from another involving the same parties.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, 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 handling one case disqualify the judge from the related cases?

A: No. The Commission found no disqualification solely from knowledge gained through judicial work.

Q: What kind of bias did the opinion distinguish?

A: It contrasted case-derived judicial knowledge with disqualifying bias from an extrajudicial source.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 3C and discusses Whisenhant v. State and a second Alabama case as printed in the original text below.

Citations and references

Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics:

• Canon 3C

See also

• AL Judicial Ethics Op. 89-385: Conclusory Postconviction Claims

Source

• Landing page: Alabama JIC advisory opinions
• Original PDF: Advisory Opinion 89-375
• Canon history: Alabama JIC, Canons of Judicial Ethics

Original opinion text

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

89-375
Judicial Inquiry Commission
800 SOUTH MCDONOUGH STREET
SUITE 201
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36104
May 23, 1989
The Judicial Inquiry Commission has considered your request for an opinion concerning whether under the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics a disqualifying conflict exists in a judge hearing a divorce case and a harassment case filed by the wife in the divorce case against the husband and a third party or a harassment case filed by the third party against the wife. It is the opinion of the Commission that a judge is not disqualified from sitting in all three of the above-described cases. Disqualification is governed primarily by Canon 3C of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. That Canon requires disqualification where the judge’s: “... disqualification is required by law or his impartiality might reasonably be questioned ...” The Canon then sets out some specific instances in which disqualification is required. We note that each specific instance cited in the Canon requires some personal interest (either real or perceived) of the judge or a member of his family. The Canon does not require disqualification where a judge’s familiarity with one case is derived from his having tried another case or from another judicial experience. Our courts have held that this type of “judicial bias” does not require disqualification. Whisenhant v. State, 482 So.2d 1225, 1237 (Ala. Cr. App. 1982) aff'd in relevant part, 482 So. 2d 1241, 1245 (Ala. 1983). Further, our Supreme Court has noted that disqualifying bias or prejudice must arise from an extra-judicial source. Hartment v. Board of Trustees, 436 So.2d 837 (1983). Knowledge gained from the trial of one case therefore, of itself, does not disqualify a judge from hearing another case involving the same parties. In the fact situation given, the judge is not precluded from sitting in any of the three cases. Sincerely, JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION