[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

practice in controversy”).
43. CJC Rule 2.11(A)(6); e.g., Lee v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 1999) (judge who gained information from prior
proceeding involving accomplice not required to recuse). Cf. Village of Exeter v. Kahler, 606 N.W.2d 862 (Neb. App.
2000) (judge who gained information from an earlier proceeding involving the same party disqualified).
44. Some courts add that the source of bias must be extrajudicial, that is, personal, rather than originating in the
judicial proceeding itself. E.g., Farmer v. State, 770 So. 2d 953 (Miss. 2000). The Supreme Court prefers to call the
extrajudicial source doctrine a “factor” in determining whether bias or partiality was present. Liteky v. United States,
510 U.S. 540 (1995) (judge’s opinions did not amount to bias or partiality unless they displayed a deep-seated
favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible).
45. Bassett & Perschbacher, supra note 36, at 35-39 (describing various forms of cognitive bias).
46. Id. at 40-41.
47. See, e.g., Williams v. United States, 48 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C. 1999) (recusal not required where federal judge
ruled on meaning of statute that affected federal judicial salaries).
48. CJC Rule 2.11(C). Cf. MR 1.7(b), 1.0(e); e.g., Matter of Platt, 8 P.3d 686 (Kan. 2000) (judge whose waiver
procedure required non-consenting parties to fire counsel or seek statutory disqualification publicly censured for
improper coercive procedures).
49. CJC Rule 3.1.
50. CJC Rules 3.3-3.11.
51. CJC Rules 3.12-3.15.
52. CJC Rule 3.13.
4. United States v. Murphy, 768 F.2d 1518 (7th Cir. 1985), at least involved a judge’s going on vacation — but not
with the named defendant in an official-action suit. The judge had departed for a vacation with the prosecutor of
Murphy’s case, immediately after sentencing Murphy. Obviously, the prosecutor is personally involved in the outcome
of the case in a way that the nominal defendant in an official-action suit is not.
1. U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, cl.2.
2. Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers No. 78, available at
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-78 (last visited July
18, 2016).
3. CJC Rule 4.1.
4. Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).
5. ABA Center for Prof. Responsibility, Model Code of Judicial Conduct 147 (2007 ed.); see also Citizen’s United v.
Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 910 (2010) (upholding Caperton’s rule that Due Process might require the judge
to be recused, but clarifying that a judicial candidate’s political speech could not be banned).
6. CJC Rule 2.11(A)(5).
518