Ezel / Ethics Opinions / JUDICIAL-IL

After recusing from a felony case over personal knowledge, could an Illinois judge hear probation revocation based on the same event?

Short answer No. Because the judge had already declared an inability to set aside personal knowledge of the disputed event, the same ground required disqualification in the related revocation case.
Bar
JUDICIAL-IL
Issued
September 22, 2004

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2004. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A judge heard a defendant admit a second act of domestic violence during an earlier misdemeanor matter. The judge recused from a felony case concerning that act, then faced a petition to revoke probation in the misdemeanor case based on the same act.

The Committee said knowledge obtained in judicial proceedings did not always require recusal. But this judge had publicly determined that the knowledge could not be set aside in the felony case.

Because the revocation petition involved the same disputed act, the reason for the earlier disqualification applied equally. The judge had to disqualify from the related revocation proceeding.

Currency note

The Committee’s page states that this opinion interprets the 1993 Illinois Code of Judicial Conduct, which was superseded on January 1, 2023. It does not assess whether the 2023 Code changes the analysis. Verify the current Code before relying on it.

In practice

The opinion turned on the identical factual ground and the judge’s prior declaration of inability to decide solely on presented evidence.

Common questions

Q: Does witnessing a courtroom admission automatically require recusal from all related cases?

A: No. The Committee said disqualification was not necessarily required in the first instance.

Q: Why was recusal required in the probation case?

A: The judge had already recused over knowledge of the same disputed act and publicly said that knowledge could not be set aside.

Background and rules framework

The Committee discussed former Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1), including personal knowledge and reasonable questions about impartiality. It cited Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), and IJEC Opinion 03-02.

Citations and references

  • Illinois Supreme Court Rule 63C(1)(a) and (b).
  • Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
  • IJEC Opinion 03-02.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2004. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace