J-M08001-19
2019 PA Super 307
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Appellant
v.
SITA DIP,
Appellee No. 1054 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Entered April 12, 2019
In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
Criminal Division at No(s): CP-51-CR-0006971-2018
BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., KUNSELMAN, J., and MURRAY, J.
OPINION BY BENDER, P.J.E.: FILED OCTOBER 16, 2019
In this interlocutory appeal, the Commonwealth contends that the trial
court abused its discretion by denying its “Motion to Disqualify Judge Scott
DiClaudio.”1 The Commonwealth alleges that Judge DiClaudio’s relationship
to his domestic partner (“DP”), a former employee of the Office of the District
Attorney of Philadelphia, presents an appearance of impropriety due to DP’s
filing of a charge of racial discrimination against the district attorney’s office
following her dismissal. After careful review, we affirm.
The facts concerning the criminal case against Sita Dip, Appellee, are
not germane to the disposition of this appeal. Indeed, “Appellee takes no
position in this matter.” Appellee’s Brief at 5. Instead, the unique facts and
allegations before us concern only the dispute that has arisen between the
district attorney’s office and Judge DiClaudio.
____________________________________________
1 See Motion to Disqualify Judge Scott DiClaudio, 4/11/19 (“Recusal Motion”).
J-M08001-19
In 2015, Judge DiClaudio was elected to the First Judicial District of
Pennsylvania, otherwise known as the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County. From January of 2016 until the present day, he has served in the
Criminal Division of the First Judicial District in various capacities. Trial Court
Opinion (TCO), 8/12/19, at 2. “At the time he began his term, he had already
been in a long[-]term relationship with [DP], who had been employed as an
Assistant District Attorney in Philadelphia County since 2013.” Id.
“Mr. Larry Krasner began his term as the Philadelphia District Attorney
in January [of] 2018. [DP] worked … for approximately fourteen months
under [District Attorney] Krasner.” Id. DP never appeared before Judge
DiClaudio before or during Mr. Krasner’s tenure as District Attorney, and prior
to the instant matter, no party had ever sought Judge DiClaudio’s recusal due
to his relationship with DP. Id. at 6.
On February 9, 2019, DP left the district attorney’s office. Id. at 2.
Soon thereafter, she “filed a confidential [charge] with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission …, alleging that she had been forced to leave on the
basis of racial discrimination.” Id.2 Two months later, on April 11, 2019, the
____________________________________________
2 In the Recusal Motion, the district attorney alleged that DP filed the charge
with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Recusal Motion at 2 ¶
4. The Commonwealth never attempted to enter the charge into the record—
a common theme in this case—and, thus, we cannot resolve this factual
discrepancy; however, this inconsistency is not pertinent to our disposition of
this matter. It is enough that we know that DP has filed a charge of racial
discrimination with a government agency.
-2-
J-M08001-19
district attorney filed the Recusal Motion in the above-captioned case. Until
then, “[t]he [charge of racial discrimination] had remained confidential and
unknown to the public at large[.]” Id. at 2.
Judge DiClaudio addressed the issues raised in the Recusal Motion
during hearings held on April 9, 10, and 12 of 2019.3 At the April 9th hearing,
the Commonwealth initially “explained that its [recusal] motion[s] w[ere]
based on the appearance of partiality caused by [DP]’s [charge of racial
discrimination], and not any specific partial or biased act.” Commonwealth’s
Brief at 7.4 Nevertheless, in support of the recusal motions, the
Commonwealth alleged that Judge DiClaudio had engaged in several improper
ex parte communications with employees of the district attorney’s office
before and after DP’s allegation.5 See N.T., 4/9/19, at 6-7. The
____________________________________________
3 Although the at-issue Recusal Motion was not filed until April 11, 2019, that
was not the Commonwealth’s first attempt to seek Judge DiClaudio’s
disqualification based on the charge of racial discrimination; the
Commonwealth began seeking Judge DiClaudio’s recusal a few days earlier in
all “cases in which [the district attorney’s office] represented the
Commonwealth.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 6.
4 As the trial court’s opinion does not provide a detailed accounting of what
transpired during these hearings, we rely on the Commonwealth’s summary
of the facts where they appear to be uncontested for ease of disposition.
5 The Commonwealth alleged that during DP’s employment at the district
attorney’s office, “Judge DiClaudio personally communicated with multiple
supervisors at [the district attorney’s office].” Recusal Motion at 2 n.1. “In
some of those communications, he urged that [DP] be promoted to a
supervisory position in the [o]ffice’s Juvenile Unit.” Id. Futhermore, the
Commonwealth claimed that after receiving the Commonwealth’s initial
recusal motions, “Judge DiClaudio engaged (or attempted to engage) in ex
-3-
J-M08001-19
Commonwealth asked Judge DiClaudio to order an evidentiary hearing before
a different judge to address the factual allegations it had made concerning
those communications. Id. at 7, 9, 12, 14-15. “By the end of the hearing,
Judge DiClaudio had acknowledged the existence of [DP]’s race discrimination
[charge] against the [district attorney’s office], and appeared to admit the
existence of his conversations with members of [the district attorney’s office]
about her employment months earlier, as well as his ex parte communications
about the [recusal] motions the day before. He continued, however, to
challenge the content of [those] conversations.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 7.
Judge DiClaudio held the recusal motion(s) under advisement at the end of
the April 9, 2019 hearing.
Meanwhile, the Commonwealth filed recusal motions in all of its cases
before Judge DiClaudio. On April 10, 2019, the Commonwealth continued to
argue for Judge DiClaudio’s recusal in the cases scheduled for that day. During
those arguments, Judge DiClaudio noted several unrelated situations where
he believed the district attorney’s office had demonstrated an appearance of
impropriety. “These examples were somehow meant to show why Judge
DiClaudio should not” recuse himself from cases involving the district attorney.
Id. at 9. “Ultimately, Judge DiClaudio denied the Commonwealth’s” recusal
motions. Id.
____________________________________________
parte communications with a number of lawyers from the Office, including
with a supervisor to whom Judge DiClaudio stated, inter alia, that if the
[district attorney’s o]ffice continued to seek the [c]ourt’s recusal, things would
get ‘ugly’ and District Attorney Krasner could end up in jail.” Id. at 3 n.2.
-4-
J-M08001-19
“The Commonwealth also filed [recusal] motions [before] Judge
DiClaudio in four cases scheduled before him on April 12, 2019. [Appellee]’s
case was one of them….” Id. “Judge DiClaudio asked [Appellee] whether he
thought he could be fair, and [Appellee] responded that he did.” Id. at 10.
Ultimately, Judge DiClaudio denied the Recusal Motion in Appellee’s case.
Thereafter,
[t]he Commonwealth immediately asked Judge DiClaudio to
certify his ruling for interlocutory appeal, and presented him with
a motion. When Judge DiClaudio refused even to consider it, the
Commonwealth promptly filed a notice of appeal and asked the
court not to proceed in the case. Judge DiClaudio denied the
Commonwealth’s request and prepared to proceed to trial.
But the case could not be tried that day because the police witness
was unavailable in the afternoon, and it had to be continued until
the next week. Despite the Commonwealth’s appeal, Judge
DiClaudio continued to list the case for trial. The Commonwealth
filed its motion to certify the court’s ruling for interlocutory appeal
that same day, and the court denied it the following week. The
Commonwealth also moved to stay the trial, but the court took no
action on that motion. The Commonwealth was finally able to stay
[Appellee]’s trial by filing an emergency motion with this Court,
which this Court granted.
The trial court issued a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) order, and the
Commonwealth filed a statement of matters complained of on
appeal.
Id. at 10-11.
The trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on August 12, 2019. The
Commonwealth now presents the following questions for our review:
I. After she was not promoted to a supervisory position and
her employment with the Philadelphia District Attorney’s
Office ended, the trial court’s domestic partner filed a
complaint against the [o]ffice, which alleged that [it]
discriminated against her because she is white. The [district
-5-
J-M08001-19
attorney’s office] represents the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in this case. Did the trial court abuse its
discretion and err as a matter of law by refusing to disqualify
itself where the Commonwealth is a party in this case?
II. To the extent the trial court disputes the Commonwealth’s
factual claims, and those facts are necessary to the
resolution of this case, did the trial court abuse its discretion
by refusing to refer issues of disputed fact to another judge
when the court had personal knowledge of those facts?
Commonwealth’s Brief at 4.
“The standards for recusal are well established. It is the burden of the
party requesting recusal to produce evidence establishing bias, prejudice or
unfairness which raises a substantial doubt as to the jurist’s ability to preside
impartially.” Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79, 89 (Pa. 1998).
In considering a recusal request, the jurist must first make a
conscientious determination of his or her ability to assess the case
in an impartial manner, free of personal bias or interest in the
outcome. The jurist must then consider whether his or her
continued involvement in the case creates an appearance of
impropriety and/or would tend to undermine public confidence in
the judiciary. This is a personal and unreviewable decision that
only the jurist can make. Where a jurist rules that he or she can
hear and dispose of a case fairly and without prejudice, that
decision will not be overruled on appeal but for an abuse of
discretion. In reviewing a denial of a disqualification motion, we
recognize that our judges are honorable, fair and competent.
Id. (internal citations omitted).
The Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that a “judge shall uphold and
apply the law, and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and
impartially.” Pa. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.2 (emphasis added).
‘Impartiality’ is a concept more often invoked in principle than defined with
particularity. John Stuart Mill described the term “as an obligation of justice”
-6-
J-M08001-19
that requires the state of “being exclusively influenced by the considerations
which it is supposed ought to influence the particular case in hand; and
resisting the solicitation of any motives which prompt to conduct different from
what those considerations would dictate.” JOHN STUART MILL, UTILITARIANISM
45 (Batoche Books 2011) (1863).6 Thus, impartiality is not the absence of
influences external to the matter at hand; judges exist in the real world, not
behind a veil of ideals. Instead, as Mill suggests, a jurist achieves impartiality
by successfully resisting the unavoidable presence of external influences that
might affect him or her. As our Judicial Code dictates, “[a] judge shall not
permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to
influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.” Pa. Code of Judicial
Conduct, Cannon 2.4(A) (emphasis added). Thus, we assume that a jurist will
possess interests and relationships that might conceivably influence their
judgment but, in the normal course of events, the mere presence of an
interest or relationship that could theoretically affect a judicial decision does
not create a presumption of partiality.
Rather, “[r]ecusal is required wherever there is substantial doubt as
to the jurist’s ability to preside impartially.” In the Interest of McFall, 617
A.2d 707, 713 (Pa. 1992) (emphasis added). “A jurist’s impartiality is called
into question whenever there are factors or circumstances that may
reasonably question the jurist’s impartiality in the matter.”
Id. Thus, “[i]n
____________________________________________
6 https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/utilitarianism.pdf.
-7-
J-M08001-19
order for the integrity of the judiciary to be compromised, we have held that
a judge’s behavior is not required to rise to a level of actual prejudice, but the
appearance of impropriety is sufficient.” Id. at 712. In this regard, the
appearance of impropriety sufficient to disqualify a judge exists when “a
significant minority of the lay community could reasonably question the court’s
impartiality.” Commonwealth v. Bryant,
476 A.2d 422, 426 (Pa. Super.
1984) (quoting Commonwealth v. Darush,
459 A.2d 727, 732 (Pa. 1983)).
Here, Judge DiClaudio expressed his confidence in his ability to
impartially judge cases involving the district attorney’s office. TCO at 3 (“[DP]
did not communicate anything to this [c]ourt about the substance of her claim
and this court would refuse to hear any such information, precisely because it
takes its impartiality so seriously.”). He also ruled that his relationship to DP
does not create an appearance of impropriety because:
In this case, the mere fact [that DP] filed [the charge of racial
discrimination] would not create a perception in a reasonable
person’s mind that this [c]ourt violated the Rules of Judicial
Conduct or engaged in conduct that reflects adversely on the
Judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament[,] or fitness to serve
as Judge. This [c]ourt has never made any comments regarding
the potential success or failure of [DP]’s claim and a reasonable
person observing this [c]ourt[] would see that all litigants are
treated fairly and respectfully. The [d]istrict [a]ttorney’s [o]ffice
simply has no basis to conclude that the reasonable person would
have any view other than seeing this [c]ourt for what it is, an
impartial and fair jurist.
Id. at 4.
For ease of disposition, we first address the Commonwealth’s second
claim. The Commonwealth argues that we should consider the Recusal Motion
-8-
J-M08001-19
filed in response to DP’s charge of racial discrimination in light of further
allegations it makes regarding Judge DiClaudio’s conduct. However, in the
three hearings held by Judge DiClaudio concerning the Commonwealth’s
recusal motions in this and other cases, the Commonwealth refused to present
any witnesses before the court concerning the alleged ex parte
communications the judge had with members of the district attorney’s office,
despite Judge DiClaudio’s repeated attempts to hear such evidence. See N.T.,
4/9/19, at 9; N.T., 4/10/19, at 6, 10-11; N.T., 4/12/19, at 10.7 Nevertheless,
the Commonwealth maintains that “[h]ad he held an evidentiary hearing,
Judge DiClaudio would have been required to evaluate his own credibility
against that of any potential witness. Under such circumstances, a different
judge must conduct the evidentiary hearing.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 24.
____________________________________________
7 For example, during the April 12, 2019 hearing, the following exchange
between Judge DiClaudio and Assistant District Attorney Paul George
occurred:
THE COURT: Do you have any evidence to present today, at all?
MR. GEORGE: No. For the –-
THE COURT: Any witnesses you wish to call at all?
MR. GEORGE: For the reasons previously stated –-
THE COURT: Yes or no?
MR. GEORGE: -- I do not.
THE COURT: Do you have anybody who will go under oath and
make these allegations?
MR. GEORGE: Not before this [c]ourt as fact-finder because of the
unique situation.
N.T., 4/12/19, at 10.
-9-
J-M08001-19
It is true that “no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is
permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” In Re
Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). However, recusal motions are
routinely addressed in the first instance by the judge whose recusal is sought.
Abu-Jamal,
720 A.2d at 89 (“As a general rule, a motion for recusal is initially
directed to and decided by the jurist whose impartiality is being challenged.”).
Therefore, it cannot be the case that any question of fact even remotely
involving a judge’s impartiality requires a separate hearing before a separate
judge. Instead, the general rule is that a party seeking the recusal of a judge,
at a minimum, must satisfy a burden of production and persuasion to show
that the recusal claim is not frivolous. This may require the presentation of
witnesses or evidence before the judge whose recusal is sought.
There are times when a judge must refer a recusal motion to another
judge. For instance, in Mun. Publications, Inc. v. Ct. of Com. Pleas of
Philadelphia County, 489 A.2d 1286, 1287 (Pa. 1985), the
appellees/defendants filed a motion seeking recusal of the trial court judge,
the Honorable Bernard Snyder, based on the allegation that Judge Snyder was
biased in favor of the appellant’s/plaintiff’s counsel. Judge Snyder initially
referred the recusal matter to another judge, but then vacated that order and
scheduled a recusal hearing before himself.
Id. Judge Snyder held recusal
hearings over the course of several weeks. During those hearings, he “gave
testimony during the proceedings over which he presided.”
Id. Ultimately,
he denied the recusal motion.
- 10 -
J-M08001-19
Addressing the matter on appeal, our Supreme Court stated:
At this stage we emphasize that we are not deciding whether [the
judge] should be disqualified from presiding over the underlying
libel action. We are concerned only with whether he may properly
take evidence and rule on the motion for his recusal under the
unique circumstances presented by this matter. The allegations
on which the recusal motion was based focused upon a purported
personal relationship between Judge Snyder and counsel for
plaintiff Edgehill in the libel suit, and specifically upon alleged ex
parte discussions between them in chambers concerning the case,
including the recusal motion. Taken as a whole those allegations,
if true, would require Judge Snyder’s disqualification from the libel
action and necessitate a new trial.
…
The crucial aspect of the disqualification proceedings is the fact
that Judge Snyder actually permitted himself to be called as a
witness and decided to give testimony concerning his own
conduct. Thus he not only had personal knowledge of disputed
facts but was in a position to rule on objections to his own
testimony and to assess his own credibility in light of conflicting
evidence. Under such extraordinary circumstances, it was clearly
inappropriate for Judge Snyder to preside over the recusal
hearing.
Id. at 1289. Thus, our Supreme Court concluded that Judge Snyder “must be
disqualified from deciding the recusal motion.”
Id. at 1290.
However, our Supreme Court warned:
This does not mean that we will permit a party who is dissatisfied
with the progress of the trial mid-stream to arbitrarily attempt to
cause the disqualification of the presiding judge. Judge shopping
has been universally condemned, and will not be tolerated at any
stage of the proceedings. Thus, where fabricated, frivolous or
scurrilous charges are raised against the presiding judge during
the course of the proceeding, the court may summarily dismiss
those objections without hearing where the judge is satisfied that
the complaint is wholly without foundation. In such case the
complaining party may assign the accusation as a basis for posttrial relief and, if necessary, a record can be developed at that
- 11 -
J-M08001-19
stage and in that context. Where, as here, a judge concludes that
the allegations justify an evidentiary hearing in which he will
testify, it then becomes incumbent upon that judge to step aside
for the appointment of another judge to hear and rule upon the
issue of disqualification.
Id. at 1289–90 (citations omitted; emphasis added).
The instant matter is easily distinguishable from Mun. Publications,
Inc. Although the Commonwealth is correct in stating that Judge DiClaudio
expressed disagreement with the Commonwealth regarding the nature of his
conversations with members of the district attorney’s office, he did not do so
in his capacity as a witness at an evidentiary hearing, nor was he making a
credibility determination. Had Judge DiClaudio held a hearing during which
he testified before himself, or had he assessed the credibility of other
witnesses based on his own recollection of events, this matter would fall
squarely within the rule set forth in Mun. Publications, Inc. However, no
such events occurred below. Instead, the Commonwealth flatly refused to
present any witnesses before the trial court, ostensibly based on the theory
that Judge DiClaudio would have acted in a similar manner to Judge Snyder
in Mun. Publications, Inc. However, this Court cannot entertain any such
conjecture, as we are instead compelled to assume “that our judges are
honorable, fair and competent” until they demonstrate otherwise. Abu-
Jamal, 720 A.2d at 89.
We must assume, therefore, that Judge DiClaudio could have received
the potential witnesses’ testimony to make a threshold determination of
whether the allegations made in the Commonwealth’s motions and arguments
- 12 -
J-M08001-19
were “wholly without foundation.” Mun. Publications, Inc., 489 A.2d at
1290. A judge may then dismiss a recusal motion based on “fabricated,
frivolous or scurrilous charges”
Id.
Instantly, if the Commonwealth’s witnesses had failed to testify in
accordance with the Commonwealth’s allegations, then Judge DiClaudio could
have disregarded those allegations without making any credibility
determinations at all. Indeed, because the Commonwealth continues to
maintain that any actual bias on the part of Judge DiClaudio is not at issue,
the actual truthfulness of those allegations are less relevant than the
appearance of the allegations, assuming the accusations are not patently
frivolous and/or without foundation.
However, the Commonwealth failed to place on the record any evidence
for the claims regarding Judge DiClaudio’s ex parte communications with
employees from the district attorney’s office, depriving Judge DiClaudio of the
ability to make a threshold determination whether those allegations were
frivolous. While Judge DiClaudio was not entitled to evaluate the credibility of
those potential witnesses against his own memory or his own testimony, he
was entitled to determine if the allegations had some testimonial or
evidentiary foundation, or whether they had been fabricated or embellished
by the arguments of counsel. If given the opportunity to make such a
threshold determination, Judge DiClaudio could have decided whether to
recuse, or, alternatively, whether to refer the matter to another judge for a
credibility assessment. Accordingly, because the Commonwealth failed to
- 13 -
J-M08001-19
present evidence supporting the troubling claims it made regarding Judge
DiClaudio’s ex parte communications with the members of the district
attorney’s office, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it refused
to order an evidentiary hearing before another judge.
Consequently, as we turn to assess the Commonwealth’s first claim, we
consider only the existence of the charge of racial discrimination itself, and
the admissions of Judge DiClaudio on the record. That claim asserts that the
charge of racial discrimination, alone—which is not contained in the record but
whose existence was acknowledged by Judge DiClaudio—is a sufficient basis
for this Court to conclude that the court abused its discretion by failing to
recuse based on an appearance of impropriety. The relevant legal standard
before Judge DiClaudio was whether a significant minority of the lay
community could reasonably question the judge’s impartiality in Appellee’s
case given his relationship to DP.8 Bryant, 476 A.2d at 426.
It is undisputed that the charge of racial discrimination does not directly
involve Judge DiClaudio. Judge DiClaudio is not a party to any litigation
against the district attorney’s office, nor has the Commonwealth alleged that
he would be a potential witness in any such action. Rather, the
Commonwealth alleges that “[w]hen a close family member, such as a
domestic partner, files a [charge of racial discrimination] against counsel for
a party appearing before a judge, that judge should grant a disqualification
____________________________________________
8 Hereinafter, the “Significant Minority” standard.
- 14 -
J-M08001-19
motion because a significant minority of the lay community could reasonably
question the judge’s impartiality.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 12.
When assessing the trial court’s application of the Significant Minority
standard, we cannot poll the lay community, nor is it clear, even if we could
conduct such a poll, how we would quantify what percentage of the lay public
constitutes a significant minority thereof. By invoking the lay community
rather than the public at large, we assume that the standard dictates that the
lower court exclude professional legal opinions on the matter, opinions which
might theoretically place more faith in the impartiality of the judiciary than
the average layperson. Thus, granting that assumption, the Significant
Minority standard sets the bar for establishing an appearance of impropriety
quite low.
Regardless of the uncertainties involved in applying the Significant
Minority standard, this Court’s standard of review of that decision—whether
the trial court abused its discretion in applying the Significant Minority
standard—is highly deferential to the trial court’s reasoning. As is now
axiomatic:
The term ‘discretion’ imports the exercise of judgment, wisdom
and skill so as to reach a dispassionate conclusion, within the
framework of the law, and is not exercised for the purpose of
giving effect to the will of the judge. Discretion must be exercised
on the foundation of reason, as opposed to prejudice, personal
motivations, caprice or arbitrary actions. Discretion is abused
when the course pursued represents not merely an error of
judgment, but where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or
where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the
action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will.
- 15 -
J-M08001-19
Commonwealth v. Widmer, 744 A.2d 745, 753 (Pa. 2000) (quoting Coker
v. S.M. Flickinger Co., Inc.,
625 A.2d 1181, 1185 (Pa. 1993)).
In support of its recusal claim, the Commonwealth cites few
Pennsylvania cases, and gives scant analysis of the cases it does mention.
Instead, the Commonwealth substantially relies on its own interpretation of
the Significant Minority standard, suggesting that it is simply obvious that
Judge DiClaudio’s relationship to DP creates an appearance of impropriety due
to DP’s charge of racial discrimination against the district attorney’s office.
For the reasons that follow, we do not agree that it is so obvious that the
charge of racial discrimination, alone, creates an appearance of impropriety.
The Commonwealth first asserts that the trial court applied the wrong
standard—that it focused exclusively on the presence or absence of actual
bias, rather than on the appearance of impropriety. Commonwealth’s Brief at
15. We disagree. While the trial court did engage in banter with the
Commonwealth over the appearance of actual bias during the April 2019
hearings, the court’s Rule 1925(a) opinion clearly indicates that it also
considered “whether this [c]ourt[’]s continued involvement creates an
appearance of impropriety….” TCO at 3. The trial court attempts to parse out
a difference between the Significant Minority standard and the standard set
forth in the Judicial Code of Conduct. See id. at 3-4. In this regard, the trial
court suggests that the at-issue standard is whether the judge’s “conduct
would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated” the
Judicial Code or engaged in conduct “that reflects adversely on the judge’s
- 16 -
J-M08001-19
honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as judge.” Id. (citing
Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2, Comment (5)). This is a distinction without a
difference. In essence, both tests assert a reasonable person standard—
whether a reasonable person would question the impartiality of the judge in
light of the circumstances that gave rise to the recusal motion. Even if there
is a significant distinction between these standards, the Commonwealth has
not raised, and therefore has waived, any argument in that regard. However,
as to the Commonwealth’s preserved argument that the trial court
exclusively considered the presence or absence of actual bias, the record
belies that claim. The trial court did not merely consider whether it harbored
actual bias toward the district attorney’s office.
Next, the Commonwealth contends that “[o]ther courts to consider the
question have all concluded that a judge who is engaged in litigation against
one of the parties’ legal representative must disqualify himself or herself[,]”
and that “[t]he same is true when a member of the judge’s family is the legal
adversary of a lawyer appearing before that judge.” Commonwealth’s Brief
at 16. However, the second proposition does not necessarily follow from the
first. There is no strict formula for recusal. Instead, the governing question
is whether a reasonable person (layperson or otherwise) would question Judge
DiClaudio’s impartiality in Appellee’s case because of the unrelated matter of
his domestic partner’s initiation of a charge of racial discrimination against the
district attorney’s office.
- 17 -
J-M08001-19
Notably, the Commonwealth fails to cite any precedent that even
approaches controlling authority in support of its abuse of discretion/recusal
claim. Some of the cases cited by the Commonwealth are not even controlling
in this jurisdiction. Nevertheless, out of an abundance of caution, we will
discuss each in turn and then distinguish them from the instant matter.9
In McFall, former Judge Mary Rose Fante Cunningham “became an
undercover agent for federal law enforcement authorities in exchange for a
promise that those authorities would make her cooperation known to any
agency that chose to prosecute her for accepting a gift from a potential
litigant.” McFall, 617 A.2d at 711. “The Defender Association of Philadelphia,
on behalf of twenty-nine appellees, filed motions seeking the nullification of
all judicial actions taken in their respective cases by Cunningham while she
was simultaneously acting as an undercover agent. Anthony McFall was one
of the appellees represented by the Defender Association.”
Id. (footnote
____________________________________________
9 The Commonwealth’s citation of Czuprynski v. Bay Cir. J.,
420 N.W.2d 141
(Mich. App. 1988), is particularly unhelpful, as the underlying facts of that
case are not discussed in any detail in the court’s opinion, and because
Michigan’s standard for review of the denial of a recusal motion require a
showing of actual bias for reversal.
Id. at 143 (“Review of an order granting
or denying recusal of a trial judge for bias or prejudice is for abuse of discretion
and the record must show actual bias or prejudice.”). Moreover, the
Commonwealth’s analysis of that case, indicating that it affirmed “the removal
of a judge from all cases in which a lawyer who filed a grievance against the
judge represented a party before that judge” is not accurate.
Commonwealth’s Brief at 16 n.6. Indeed, the Czuprynski court appears to
have rejected that form of requested relief, and instead indicated that recusal
motions should always be granted on a case-by-case basis. See Czuprynski,
420 N.W.2d at 144-45.
- 18 -
J-M08001-19
omitted). Those motions were assigned to a different judge, who found for
the appellees. The Commonwealth appealed that decision, arguing that the
judge had no “direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in the cases in
which she presided.” Id. at 712.
Our Supreme Court ultimately affirmed this Court’s decision to affirm,
reasoning as follows:
In the instant case, we again find that the appearance of
impropriety is sufficient justification for the grant of new
proceedings before another judge. We find that Cunningham’s
course of conduct created the appearance of impropriety. First,
she accepted a gift from a potential litigant. Second, she became
aware of the fact that the F.B.I. had discovered her misconduct.
Finally, Cunningham decided to assist the F.B.I. in their
investigation of other judges suspected of accepting gifts.
Cunningham’s assistance was in exchange for the F.B.I.’s promise
to disclose her cooperation to any other authorities who chose to
prosecute her. One could reasonably conclude that, under the
circumstances, Cunningham’s cooperation with the United States
Attorney’s office cast her in the role of a confederate of the
prosecutors in the appellees’ cases.
Id. at 712–13.
In Abu-Jamal, a PCRA10 petitioner had sought the recusal of the PCRA
court judge based on “several newspaper and magazine articles which
criticized [the PCRA court judge’s] behavior during the PCRA proceedings.”
Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d at 89. He appealed, inter alia, from the judge’s denial
of his recusal motion. After reviewing the record of those proceedings, our
Supreme Court rejected Abu-Jamal’s claim, reasoning:
____________________________________________
10 Post Conviction Relief Act, 42 Pa.C.S § 9541 et seq.
- 19 -
J-M08001-19
While there are certainly instances in the record where the judge
displays displeasure and/or impatience, those instances were, in
large part, a direct result of obstreperous conduct on the part of
[the a]ppellant’s counsel. The record reveals instances where
defense counsel refused to accept a particular ruling offered by
the court, relentlessly urging the court to reconsider. Although
we certainly do not condone unjustified or indiscriminate rhetoric
on the part of a presiding judge, we are nevertheless mindful of
the fact that judges, too, are subject to human emotion. It simply
cannot be denied that this particular case was one that was not
only highly publicized but also highly emotionally charged. As a
result, the judge’s duty to maintain the judicial decorum of the
proceedings was, at times, met with great resistance. Upon
review of the entire record, we cannot conclude that any of Judge
Sabo’s intemperate remarks were unjustified or indiscriminate nor
did they evidence a settled bias against [the a]ppellant.
Id. at 89–90.
In Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 990 A.2d 732 (Pa. Super. 2009), this
Court found that a sentencing court judge had abused his discretion in denying
the defendant’s recusal motion where the judge refused to reflect on the
recusal standard, “sought to justify its decision not to recuse by denying any
external affiliation or relationship that would demonstrate bias and then
castigated defense counsel for seeking the court’s recusal[,]” and where
the record, which we have examined in exhaustive detail, raises
significant concerns that the trial court may have prejudged this
case or reached its decision at sentencing on the basis of improper
considerations. Although a judge is never constrained to accept a
plea, Judge Cunningham accepted Rhodes’s plea to Voluntary
Manslaughter and, correctly, directed compilation of a
presentence report. Having received the report, he then declined
to use it and relied instead on police reports he ordered from the
Commonwealth, ex parte. His use of those reports remained
undisclosed to Rhodes’s counsel until the sentencing hearing was
in progress and the court had already completed and distributed
its Statement of Sentencing Rationale to all present in the
courtroom, except counsel. Accordingly, Rhodes was deprived of
any meaningful opportunity to challenge the layered hearsay of
- 20 -
J-M08001-19
the reports, which examination of the Statement of Sentencing
Rationale verifies served as the primary source of information on
which the court made its determination to impose a sentence close
to the statutory maximum. In that Statement, as well as its
remarks at sentencing, the court stated, repeatedly and
unequivocally, that it reached its determination based on Rhodes’s
commission of a premeditated killing, notwithstanding the fact
that premeditation is not an element of the crime to which Rhodes
offered her plea. Consistent with its determination concerning
premeditation, the court’s Statement then repudiated the
Commonwealth’s sentencing recommendation on the basis of an
unrelated case … before it offered the District Attorney any
opportunity to respond or explain. To all appearances, the court
then made de facto findings of fact, seemingly ascribing conduct
to Rhodes, e.g., inducing her own labor, that appears nowhere in
the charges against her.
Id. at 750. We concluded that the sentencing court abused its discretion by
denying the various recusal motions “given the cumulative effect of [the
judge’s] conduct and remarks[,]” based upon which the “court’s impartiality
could be reasonably questioned.”
Id. at 751.
Similarly, in Commonwealth v. White, 910 A.2d 648 (Pa. 2006), our
Supreme Court determined that the trial court judge abused her discretion in
failing to recuse where she had repeatedly denounced “the short-comings of
the legal system” in the type of case before her, a matter involving an 11-
year-old defendant accused of murder.
Id. at 659. The judge had also overtly
offered the defendant favorable treatment, “[t]elling the accused that she was
going to work hard to do things for her.”
Id. at 658.
In State v. McCabe, 987 A.2d 567 (N.J. 2010), the defendant filed a
recusal motion because his attorney and the municipal court judge hearing
the defendant’s case were opposing counsel in an open and unresolved
- 21 -
J-M08001-19
probate case. The Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the appearance of
impropriety clearly existed because the judge and the defendant’s attorney
“were still adversaries in an open matter.” Id. at 573.
In Brewton v. Kelly, 166 So.2d 834 (Fla. 2d Dist. App. 1964), the
defendants filed a recusal motion alleging actual bias because the judge was
the target of a Bill of Impeachment signed by the partners of the defendants’
attorney.11 The recusal motion was supported by affidavits from the partners
indicating that one had “testified at the impeachment trial before the Senate
and assisted the House Manager in the preparation and prosecution of the
charges.”
Id. at 836.
In In re Braswell, 600 S.E.2d 849, 850 (N.C. 2004), a disciplinary
action, the Supreme Court of North Carolina censured a judge for failing to
grant recusal in a case where “the plaintiff in that case had an unrelated
lawsuit pending against” that judge.
Id.
Finally, in State v. Hahn, 660 N.E.2d 606, 607 (Ind. App. 1996), a
judge denied a recusal motion in a criminal case where the judge had been
previously prosecuted by the district attorney, a prosecution that had led to
the suspension of the judge’s license to practice law, which had only recently
been reinstated prior to his appointment as judge. The alleged facts
supporting the motion for recusal were set forth in an affidavit filed by the
____________________________________________
11The defendants’ counsel and his two partners were the only three named
partners in their law firm.
- 22 -
J-M08001-19
deputy prosecutor. The Indiana appeals court reversed the trial court’s order
denying the motion for recusal.
All of these cases are distinguishable from the instant matter. Here,
Judge DiClaudio is not a party to any current litigation against the district
attorney’s office (or its ‘client,’ the Commonwealth), unlike the conflicts that
arose in McCabe and Braswell. Judge DiClaudio was not previously
prosecuted by the district attorney’s office, unlike the issue that arose in
Hahn.
Judge DiClaudio cohabitates and is in a romantic relationship with DP,
and that relationship does give rise to the potential for conflicts of interest.
However, DP has not yet filed a lawsuit against the district attorney’s office.
Rather, DP has initiated a charge of racial discrimination with an
administrative agency against the district attorney’s office that may,
eventually, lead to actual litigation. Furthermore, there is no indication in the
record that Judge DiClaudio would personally be involved in such potential
litigation in any capacity, whatsoever. The Commonwealth suggests that
Judge DiClaudio could one day stand to benefit from DP’s allegations
financially; however, the Commonwealth has produced no evidence to that
effect.12 There is no evidence of record indicating that Judge DiClaudio’s and
____________________________________________
12 The Commonwealth alleges that “Judge DiClaudio’s personal investment in
his domestic partner’s career gave him an individualized stake in her
promotion.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 19. We reiterate that the record before
us does not contain evidence of Judge DiClaudio’s text messages in support
- 23 -
J-M08001-19
DP’s finances are substantially intermingled so as to permit such an
assumption.
The Commonwealth also contends that Judge DiClaudio’s response to
the various recusal motions, including the one at issue here, further
demonstrates his alleged partiality or bias. In this regard, the Commonwealth
first directs our attention to Judge DiClaudio’s alleged communication with a
prosecutor in the district attorney’s office where it is alleged the judge
suggested that Mr. Krasner could end up in jail as a result of his pursuit of
Judge DiClaudio’s recusal. Commonwealth’s Brief at 20. However, as noted
above, the content of that ex parte communication was disputed, and the
Commonwealth failed to present the prosecutor as a witness or even provide
that prosecutor’s version of events in an affidavit. Accordingly, we will not
consider those allegations as they are not contained within the record before
us.
The Commonwealth also contends that Judge DiClaudio’s behavior in
the courtroom during the three hearings demonstrates his bias or partiality,
in a similar vein to what occurred in Rhodes and White. However, we
conclude that Judge DiClaudio’s behavior was more akin to what had occurred
in Abu-Jamal. The Commonwealth conceded at oral argument that, if
____________________________________________
of DP’s promotion. In any event, it does not immediately follow from Judge
DiClaudio’s support of DP’s career trajectory that he would have financially
benefited from her promotion, or that he will benefit should she receive
compensation as a result of the charge of racial discrimination or a subsequent
lawsuit.
- 24 -
J-M08001-19
granted, its recusal motions would essentially evict Judge DiClaudio from the
Criminal Division entirely, because the district attorney’s office is a party to all
but a few criminal cases heard in that division. Thus, this case is unique in
relation to the relevant case law in that the judge was not simply being asked
to recuse from a single case or from cases involving a typical party. Moreover,
the Commonwealth was refusing to offer witnesses to substantiate its
allegations of misconduct against him. As was the case in Abu-Jamal, this
created an emotionally charged environment. Judges are human and cannot
be reasonably expected to act without any emotion in all circumstances.
However, much of what the Commonwealth refers to as a combative
tone by Judge DiClaudio, such as where Judge DiClaudio recounted “a number
of instances in which he believed” that the district attorney’s office “created
[an] appearance of impropriety[,]” could also be construed as his engaging
counsel with hypotheticals to aid in his understanding of the standard for
recusal. Commonwealth’s Brief at 21. That the Commonwealth believes those
comments to be “irrelevant to the question at hand” is just another way of
saying that it did not believe that Judge DiClaudio’s hypotheticals were
analogous to the matter at issue. These are, essentially, legal arguments, not
clear or obvious instances of Judge DiClaudio’s partiality or bias as observed
in Rhodes or White.13 Instead, Judge DiClaudio’s conduct appears to be
____________________________________________
13We also note that in both Rhodes and White, the respective judges’ biases
were directed not just at a party, but were instead observed to be directly
- 25 -
J-M08001-19
more like the conduct observed in Abu-Jamal, which was less than ideal, but
excusable in light of the unique circumstances of this case.
In sum, we conclude that it belies reason to suggest that Judge
DiClaudio would favor a criminal defendant, or disfavor an individual assistant
district attorney working for the district attorney’s office, based solely on DP’s
filing of the racial discrimination charge. Only the most unreasonable and
cynical layperson could harbor such a suspicion based on the mere
possibility of future litigation by a relative14 of Judge DiClaudio. Indeed,
there is also no indication in the record that Judge DiClaudio could use his
position to support DP’s charge of racial discrimination, or to hinder the district
attorney’s office’s response thereto. The cases before Judge DiClaudio are not
related in any way to the subject of the potential litigation of DP’s allegations
of discrimination against the district attorney’s office.15
On the other side of the equation, we also note the uniqueness of the
district attorney’s office in contrast to the typical law firm. A district attorney’s
____________________________________________
affecting the litigation of the critical issues involved in those cases. We do not
say this to suggest that bias or partiality toward a party must dovetail with
the matter at issue in the case to warrant recusal, but it does demonstrate
that the evidence of bias in those cases, or the appearance thereof, was much
stronger than in the instant matter.
14We acknowledge that a domestic partner is functionally the equivalent of a
spouse under the Judicial Code of Conduct. See Pa. Code of Judicial Conduct,
Cannon 2.11(A)(2).
15 By contrast, it is undisputed that Judge DiClaudio would have to disqualify
himself if asked to oversee litigation flowing from or related to the racial
discrimination charge filed by DP.
- 26 -
J-M08001-19
office does not represent typical clients. It represents the Commonwealth in
virtually all matters in the criminal courts of Philadelphia, with the occasional
exception where the Commonwealth is represented by the Attorney General’s
Office. The Philadelphia’s Office of the District Attorney is a large institution,
containing a multitude of attorneys, making it relatively distinctive in this
Commonwealth even among other district attorney’s offices. Consequently,
the potential for conflicts of interest to arise between the district attorney’s
office and judges in Philadelphia County is therefore greater than the typical
law firm or district attorney’s office, yet the ability to mitigate such conflicts
is also greater due to the size of the institution. It would appear to be a
relatively minor inconvenience for the district attorney’s office to assign
disinterested assistant district attorneys to Judge DiClaudio’s courtroom who
are not remotely involved with the matters that gave rise to the racial
discrimination charge. This stands in stark contrast to the matter at issue in
Brewton, where the attorneys involved in the impeachment of that judge
were the literal partners of the attorney who sought his recusal. Here, there
are various degrees of separation between Judge DiClaudio and the individuals
concerned with the charge of racial discrimination filed against the district
attorney’s office.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the Commonwealth has failed
to meet its burden on appeal to establish that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying the Recusal Motion. We are loathe to speculate as to
what additional circumstances would cause a reasonable person (or layperson)
- 27 -
J-M08001-19
to doubt Judge DiClaudio’s impartiality in all matters involving the district
attorney’s office. We merely hold that the filing of the charge of racial
discrimination, and Judge DiClaudio’s in-court response to the recusal motions
based on that allegation, do not alone demonstrate an abuse of discretion in
1) his failure to recuse; or 2) his refusal to order an evidentiary hearing before
another judge. However, we affirm without prejudice to the Commonwealth’s
ability to develop the record further.
Order affirmed without prejudice. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judgment Entered.
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary
Date: 10/16/19
- 28 -
