The following excerpt is from Ligon v. City of N.Y., 13-3088, 13-3123 (2nd Cir. 2013):
requiring recusation [sic], that reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice."25 Even where there is reason to believe that a district judge would fairly conduct further proceedings on remand, "in determining whether to reassign a case we consider not only whether a judge could be expected to have difficulty putting aside his previously expressed views, but also whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice."26 Such a decision "does not imply any personal criticism of the trial judge,"27 and none is intended here. Indeed, for example, in United States v. Quattrone, we ordered reassignment because "portions of the transcript raise[d] the concern that certain comments could be viewed as rising beyond mere impatience or annoyance" even though there was no "evidence that the trial judge made any inappropriate statements leading us to seriously doubt his impartiality."28
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.