Post by Jim on Jan 27, 2013 10:00:30 GMT -5
U.S. SUPREME COURT upholds N.J. Supreme Court that "when judges are exercising discretion, they are not free to err on the side of caution", like in domestic violence cases.
“Recusal is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge where it is sought.” State v. Marschall, 148 N.J. 89, 275-76, cert. den. 522 U.S. 850 (1997).
“ When exercising that discretion, judges are not free to err on the side of caution; it is improper for a court to recuse itself unless the factual bases for its disqualification are shown by the movant to be true or are already known by the court.” Id. at 276.
How many times have we heard that judges in domestic violence cases "err on the side of caution" to protect the purported victim? The NJ Supreme Court, after certiorari to the US Supreme Court was denied, held that to "err on the side of caution" is improper because judges are not free to "err on the side of caution".
“Recusal is entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial judge where it is sought.” State v. Marschall, 148 N.J. 89, 275-76, cert. den. 522 U.S. 850 (1997).
“ When exercising that discretion, judges are not free to err on the side of caution; it is improper for a court to recuse itself unless the factual bases for its disqualification are shown by the movant to be true or are already known by the court.” Id. at 276.
How many times have we heard that judges in domestic violence cases "err on the side of caution" to protect the purported victim? The NJ Supreme Court, after certiorari to the US Supreme Court was denied, held that to "err on the side of caution" is improper because judges are not free to "err on the side of caution".
