Notice Of Recusal

A motion to recuse is a legal motion filed in court that says a judge should be disqualified, or removed, from a legal case for a reason listed within CCP 170.1. The motion can be brought by either a prosecutor or a defense attorney.

Primary tabs. Judges recuse themselves when they take no part in deciding cases that they would otherwise help decide. The Due Process clauses of the United States Constitution requires judges to recuse themselves from cases in two situations: Where the judge has a financial interest in the case's outcome.

(5) A judge who refuses to recuse himself or herself shall not pass upon his or her own disqualification or upon the sufficiency in law, fact, or otherwise, of the statement of disqualification filed by a party.

A recusal is appropriate when a conflict of interest exists between an employee's job duties and financial interests (including interests in future employment) or certain business or personal relationships or outside activities.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer.

If a party believes that the judge's impartiality may reasonably be questioned under the provisions of the Constitution of New Mexico or the Code of Judicial Conduct, the party may file a notice of facts requiring recusal. The notice shall specifically set forth the constitutional grounds alleged.

When is recusal appropriate? In general, recusal is appropriate when an official has a conflict of interest with respect to a specific matter, or when the official is biased and cannot act impartially.

Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer.

A judge asked to disqualify himself or herself may need to apply the fair-minded observer test in respect of the evidence, in other words, unless the hypothetical observer would reject the evidence as entirely implausible the judge should consider whether, if accepted, it had the relevant quality to raise a reasonable