A judge who is biased in a hearing he or she presides over has a mental attitude towards a party to the dispute that prevents him or her from following the trial fairly, thereby depriving the party of the right to a fair trial. A judge may withdraw to avoid the appearance of bias. Robert`s divorce must be submitted to Judge Hardnose, who is known to favor women in contentious divorce cases. Robert`s lawyer recommends transferring the case to another judge, although there is no evidence that he has a biased opinion in Robert`s case. To ensure that Robert receives an impartial and fair hearing, his lawyer presents an outright challenge and rejects Justice Hardnose. In this example of forfeiture, the case is referred back to the Court of Justice Equity. In some jurisdictions, a judge can only be dismissed “for cause”. This means that the party who wants to remove the judge must have a good reason, such as bias. However, other jurisdictions allow a party to disqualify or remove a judge from the case on a “compelling” basis.
This means that a party can request the dismissal of the judge without giving a specific reason. In such jurisdictions, such a “compelling challenge” is a unique opportunity not to allow the parties to “judge” by retiring until they find one they like. The term bias refers to a person`s tendency to favor one thing, idea, or person over another. In a legal context, bias can cause a person, such as a judge or jury, to treat someone unfairly, even if hearings and trials are designed as impartial assessments of the facts of a case. Bias can also affect issues such as applying for jobs or entering the country and recruiting people for other purposes. To explore this concept, consider the following definition of bias. A fundamental principle of our legal system is that a judge or magistrate cannot sit in a case where he or she is biased. This is important for justice to be done and for justice to be seen. There are well-established criteria for actual and registered judicial bias, but how they are applied may vary depending on the circumstances.
However, there are many reasons why a party believes a juror is biased, making it quite easy to state a legitimate purpose. Other issues that can obscure a juror`s opinion include: Bias is an act, policy, evaluation or unfair decision that results from certain characteristics. In the legal system, a judge or jury should make impartial decisions based on a fair and impartial examination of the facts and the law. If a judge or jury has a preconceived opinion on a party to a trial or on any of the issues, they may not be able to make a fair and impartial decision. Even in a case where jurors were chosen because none of them have a prior opinion, the judge`s bias may prevent him or her from supervising the trial fairly. The conduct of a judge during a pre-trial period, such as bail applications, can lead to feared bias if the conduct indicates that he or she has lost his or her impartiality in the case. Judges should not communicate with the parties or counsel for the parties outside of court while a case is pending. Judges should not receive communications with a party without the knowledge and consent of the other parties. Judges must avoid the appearance of bias by avoiding social or other contact with the parties while a case is still pending.
When selecting jurors for Juan`s trial, a total of eight Hispanic people are on the jury – and each of them is systematically dismissed by the prosecutor for convincing challenge. In other words, he provided no reason to dismiss the Hispanic jury. The resulting panel, composed almost exclusively of white jurors, condemns Juan. In this example of bias, whether Juan was guilty is not the question, but whether he received a fair and impartial trial from a jury chosen from a community cross-selection. PREJUDICE. A particularly influential power that influences judgment; the tilt or inclination of the mind towards a particular object. 2. The judiciary shall require that the judge not be biased for or against any person; and that his mind should be completely free to act as required by law.
3. However, there is one type of bias suffered by the courts in order to influence their judgments, namely a bias in favour of a group of cases or persons that is different from an individual case or a person. A few examples will explain it. A bias is felt for reasons of convenience. 1 Ves. Senator 13, 14; 3 Atk. 524. It is also felt in favour of the legal heir, as if there were an heir on the one hand and a simple volunteer on the other. Willes, R. 570 1 W. B. 256; Amb.
R. 645; 1 Ball & B. 309 1 Wils. R. 310 3 Atk. 747 ID. 222. On the other hand, the court rejected the double portions for children; M`Clell. R. 356; 13 Price, R. 599 against double provisions and double satisfaction; 3 Atk.
R. 421 and against confiscation. 3 T. R. 172 Empty, in general, 1 Burr. 419 1 Bos. & Shoot. 614; 3 Bos. & Shoot. 456 Ves. Jr.
648 Jacob, Rep. 115; 1 revolution. & R. 350. The fact that the presiding judge or magistrate has a relationship with a lawyer who appears in a case does not usually lead to feared judicial bias. However, if a judge has a close relationship with a lawyer, such as marriage, this leads to a feared bias and the judge will usually be disqualified. In the context of criminal law evidence, bias is used to describe the relationship between a party and a witness that could cause the witness to testify unconsciously or otherwise for or against a party, as in United States v. Slough 22 F.Supp.3d 29 (2014). Presumed bias occurs when an impartial layman might reasonably believe that the judge may not be dealing with the case impartially. The test is to determine whether there is a real possibility (and not a distant possibility) of bias.
It is not necessary to establish that the judge would behave in a biased manner. A judge may continue to sit in a case despite the feared bias if necessary. For example, in a case where all other judges are equally affected by apprehended bias. n. the decision of a judge, arbitrator, prospective juror or person who makes a judicial decision against or in favour of one of the parties or a group of persons. This can be proven by remarks, decisions that violate facts, reason or the law, or any other unjust behavior. Prejudice can be directed against an ethnic group, homosexuals, women or men, defendants or plaintiffs, large corporations or local parties.