My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
3001-4000
>
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:41:42 PM
Creation date
7/29/2009 2:50:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8230.2F
Description
Colorado Supreme Court Appeal
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
4
Date
8/23/2004
Author
Cynthia F. Covell
Title
Notice of Apparent Positional Bias and Motion for Disqualification of Justice Hobbs, With Authorities
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Court Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
with cases that come before them. <br />Even when the appearance of bias or partiality is not automatically presumed, a judge must <br />carefully evaluate relevant facts and circumstances, and deternune whether it is appropriate to recuse <br />himself or hersel£ Canon 3(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides, in relevant part: <br />A judge should disqualifyhimself or herself in aproceeding inwhich <br />the judge's impartiality might be reasonably questioned .... <br />(Emphasis added). <br />Focusing on the importance of always demonstrating judicial impartiality, Canon 2 requires judges <br />to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality <br />of the judiciary. <br />The Canons, court rules and statutes which provide for judicial disqualification in appropriate <br />circumstances serve to prevent a party from being forced to litigate a matter before a judge with a <br />? <br />"bent of min.d." Goebel v. Benton, 830 P.2d 995, 998 (Colo. 1992). Even the appearance of a"bent <br />of mind" is prejudicial to the public confidence in the administration of justice. .Iohnson v. District <br />Courtln and ForJefferson County, 674 P.2d 952, 956 (Colo. 1984). Thus, this Court has held: "It <br />is our duty to eli.minate every semblance of reasonable doubt or suspicion that a trial by fa.ir and <br />impartial tribunal may be denied." Id. The same is true of appellate proceedings. See Canon 8. <br />Concerns about faitness and impartiality can arise if judges express views on issues that will <br />necessarily, come before them. Canon 3(A)(6) admonishes judges to ". .. abstain from public <br />eomnent about a pending or irnpending proceeding in any cotu-t..." Kourlis, supra at 753.6 <br />6"Any generalized attempt to force or induce a judge to express an opinion about a topic <br />or case that will come before the court risks that judge's ultimate impartiality." Kourlis, supra at <br />6
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.