The following excerpt is from United States v. Langston, 17-2553-cr (2nd Cir. 2018):
United States v. DeMott, 513 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (alterations in original) (citation omitted). Regarding the first factor, the government, in opposing reassignment, argues that there is an insufficient basis to conclude that the district judge could not be fair upon remand. We do not disagree with the government on this point. However, the record on appeal does not require us to conclude that the district judge could not be impartial in conducting the further proceedings we are ordering. United States v. Johnson, 850 F.3d 515, 525 (2d Cir. 2017) (reassigning the case where only factors two and three weighed in favor of reassignment). Nevertheless, we take the unusual step of directing reassignment to a different judge for the reason identified in the second factor, which is the institutional interest in ensuring that there will be no basis upon which the impartiality of those proceedings could be questioned. Here, the district judge expressed serious concern that Langston was committing a fraud on the district court, suggested that counsel
Page 4
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.