Cited by

Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 (1980)

The Minnesota Supreme Court has explained that “[a] judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.”

“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.” (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

For instance, d 361 (Minn. 2009), we held that a judge denied the defendant’s right to a fair hearing before an impartial decision-maker by communicating ex parte with the prosecutor and suggesting substantive responses to the defendant’s anticipated plea withdrawal motion.

“A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.”

“A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.”

But we have emphasized that a 13 “judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” (emphasis added).

Appellate courts presume that a judge has “discharged [their] duties properly.”

And “impartiality” is defined in this context as the “absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against, particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintaining an open mind in considering issues that may come before the judge.” (quotation omitted).

(applying plain-error review to a judicial-bias challenge raised for the first time on appeal).

(applying plain-error review to an unobjected-to claim of judicial partiality).

“The mere fact that a party declares a judge partial does not in itself generate a reasonable question as to the judge’s impartiality.”

-66 (Minn. 2009) (applying plain-error standard of review where appellant raised judicial bias for the first time on appeal).

Judges “must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.”

4 “A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” State v. Schlienz

“A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” d 361, 367 (Minn. 2009).

In a similar context, the supreme court has stated, “A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” (emphasis added).

The state also counters that the judge’s actions were permissible because the “district court’s duties differ between trial an d sentencing.” But a judge “must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” State v. Schlienz

We begin with a “presumption that a judge has discharged his or her duties properly.”

But, in State v. Schlienz, that supreme court noted that a judge must “maintain the inte grity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” (empha sis added) (concluding that an ex parte communication made prior to a plea-withdrawal hearing violated defendant’s right to an impartial judge) (emphasis added).

(applying plain-error standard of review where defe ndant raised judicial bias for first time on appeal).

“A judge must maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.”

See State v. Schlienz , (providing that a judge “should not act as counsel for a party by raising objections which the party should make”).

State v. Schlienz , , 366 (Minn. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted).

See State v. Schlienz , , 367 (Minn. 2009) (stating that impartiality of the judiciary is valued "at all stages of [criminal] proceedings"); see also Greer v. State , , 155 (Minn. 2004) ("[I]mpartiality is the very foundation of the American judicial system.").

“The presence of an impartial judge is critical to ensure the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.”

(stating “unobjected-to error may be reviewed for plain error” ).

As the Minnesota Supreme Court stated in State v. Schlienz, a judge must “maintain the integrity of the adversary system at all stages of the proceedings.” (emphasis added).

Additionally, “[a] judge ‘should not act as counsel for a party by raising objections which the party should make.’” (quoting Hansen v. St.