I’m thinking out loud here…another Flori-Duh! moment

The motion filed by the attorneys for the defendant in the case State of Florida v. Casey Anthony – [nutshell ver. – outlines the reason why they want the presiding judge to recuse himself from this trial].

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned “Bias or prejudice of judge,” provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a “timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party,” the case shall be transferred to another judge.

The general rule is that to warrant recusal, a judge’s expression of an opinion about the merits of a case or familiarity with the facts or the parties must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the “extra-judicial source rule” and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States.

What do you think?

Here is what Judge Strickland was thinking during a bond hearing July 2008

“Not a bit of useful information has been provided by Ms. Anthony as to the whereabouts of her daughter,” Judge Strickland said.  “And I would add that the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers.”

… Judge Stan Strickland 22 July 2008

Response from three of the local affiliates of ABC, NBC and CBS on the recent Motion filed by the defendant to have the judge recused from her trial.

WKMG anchor – said that Strickland wasn’t commenting.

WESH law Analyst –  “Judge Strickland has previously shown fairness to Casey Anthony in the way he sentenced her in the check case.”

WFTV anchor Liz Artz said, “We’re not expecting to hear anything from Judge Strickland until he takes up the motion in court.”

%d bloggers like this: