On Tuesday, March 12, 2024, Colorado Politics reported that the Colorado Supreme Court appeared open to the idea that a judge’s appearance of bias could potentially matter in criminal appeals, even if actual bias cannot be proven. The justices heard oral arguments in the case of Khalil Jamandre Sanders, who is appealing his 2017 convictions of assault, menacing, and illegal discharge of a firearm following a road rage incident.

Sanders’ trial was presided over by then-District Court Judge Barbara L. Hughes. During jury selection, multiple jurors spoke about their own experiences with road rage. Judge Hughes disclosed to the parties that a few years prior while driving in Colorado Springs, she witnessed a fight in the street. When she honked at the individuals, someone shot at her vehicle. Hughes recalled hearing “pop, pop, pop, ping” and a bullet hitting her car’s spoiler. She had to duck to avoid being injured. No charges were ever filed, as the shooter was not identified.

Sanders’ attorney requested that Hughes recuse herself, arguing she could not be impartial due to her own personal experience of being shot at while driving. However, Hughes denied the motion, stating her situation was dissimilar from Sanders’ case and that she had no personal interest or bias. Sanders was ultimately found guilty by the jury.

On appeal, Sanders argued Hughes should have recused under constitutional guarantees of due process, state law, criminal procedure rules, and judicial conduct rules. An appellate panel disagreed, finding no precedent that a judge’s experience of similar criminal conduct inherently creates an appearance of bias. The panel also said Hughes’ encounter was too remote and dissimilar from Sanders’ case.

At the Supreme Court, Justice William Hood expressed skepticism that Hughes’ prior incident would reasonably make her impartial. However, other justices questioned the state’s argument that a judge’s appearance of bias could never alone be grounds for overturning a conviction. Justice Carlos Samour said appearances do matter. Public defender Tracy Renner argued for examining multiple factors to determine if a reasonable person could see a judge as biased given their own victimization.

First Assistant Attorney General Paul Koehler maintained a judge’s life experiences should not invalidate convictions, and appearances of bias must be tied to actual improper conduct. However, justices explored scenarios where strong appearances of partiality could exist without proven bias. The court did not issue a decision but appeared open to the notion that in some cases, a reasonable perception of a lack of impartiality could warrant relief for defendants, even without proving actual bias. Their eventual ruling could provide clarity around when a judge’s mere appearance of partiality crosses the line.

 

 

Source: Colorado Politics