115 Md. App. 626 - Chapman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A party attempting to demonstrate "that a judge is not impartial or disinterested has a high burden to meet." Scott [ v. State ], 110 Md. App. [464,] 486, 677 A.2d 1078 [1996]. "This is so because there is a strong presumption in Maryland, and elsewhere, that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified." Jefferson-El [ v. State ], 330 Md. [99,] 107, 622 A.2d 737 [1993] (citations omitted). To overcome the presumption of impartiality, the party requesting recusal must prove that the trial judge has "a personal bias or prejudice" concerning him or "personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings." Boyd [ v. State , 321 Md. 69 , 80, 581 A.2d 1 (1990) ]. Only bias, prejudice, or knowledge derived from an extrajudicial source is "personal." Where knowledge is acquired in a judicial setting, or an opinion arguably expressing bias is formed on the basis of information "acquired from evidence presented in the course of judicial proceedings before him," neither that knowledge nor that opinion qualifies as "personal." Boyd , 321 Md. at 77 , 581 A.2d 1 (quoting Craven v. U.S. , 22 F.2d 605 , 607-08 (1st Cir.1927) ; [ Doering v. Fader , 316 Md. 351 , 356, 558 A.2d 733 (1989) ]. Id. at 107, 622 A.2d 737 (some citations omitted). A party attempting to demonstrate that a judge does not have the appearance of disinterestedness or impartiality ca”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Md. App. 638 - Nathans Assocs. v. Mayor & City Council of Ocean City

2. “(1) A judge should not participate in a proceeding in which the judge’s partiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding —”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 175 Md. App. 130 - Scott v. State