California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Briggs v. Brown, 221 Cal.Rptr.3d 465, 3 Cal.5th 808, 400 P.3d 29 (Cal. 2017):
17 In one limited circumstance, a habeas corpus proceeding is seen as an extension of the underlying criminal action. If it is assigned to the same judge who presided at trial, it is deemed a "continuation" of the trial so that the parties are barred from exercising a peremptory challenge under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6. (Maas v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal.5th 962, 979, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 571, 383 P.3d 637.) The reason for this rule, which applies in any subsequent proceeding closely related to the original case, is to prevent litigants from disqualifying the judge most familiar with the facts in the hope of obtaining a more favorable result. (Ibid. ) The rule is confined to its context, however, and does not alter the fundamental character of the habeas corpus proceeding as "an independent, collateral challenge to an earlier, completed criminal prosecution." (Id. at p. 975, 209 Cal.Rptr.3d 571, 383 P.3d 637.)
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.