Cited by

“Whether a judge is disqualified from presiding over a case is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

A judge is disqualified if “a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.”

See State v. Jacobs (In re Jacobs ), 754 (Minn. 2011) (explaining that “should” is a permissive term (quotation omitted)).

(“Whether a judge is disqualified from presiding over a case is a question of law, which we review de novo.”).

“Whether a judge is disqualified from presiding over a case is a question of law, which we review de novo.”

9-11 10 (describing fiduciary, pecuniary, and personal relationships that may materially limit a lawyer’s representation of a client); see, e.g., State v. Jacobs (In re Jacobs), d 748, 750-55 (Minn. 2011) (considering whether a judge was disqualified from presiding over a criminal case, based on the judge’s marriage to a prosecuting attorney from the county attorney’s office that was prosecuting the case, when the judge’s spouse did not appear in or otherwise handle that case); Kennedy v. L.D.

We then evaluate “whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.”

While the standard for the disqualification of judges is reviewed de novo, d 748, 750–51 (Minn. 2011), and the standard for disqualification of attorneys is reviewed for clear error, Buckentin, d at 822, our caselaw has not yet addressed the proper standard of review for disqualification of special masters.

“Whether a judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned is determined by an ‘objective examination into the circumstances surrounding the removal request.’” ().

“Cause for removal [of a judge] exists if the judge would be disqualified under the Code of Judicial Conduct.” (citing Minn. R. Crim.

cmt.—2016 amendments (emphasis added); d 748, 754 (Minn. 2011) (“[T]he use of the word ‘should’ indicates that the comment is not mandatory.”).

A judge’s impartiality is an objective consideration, evaluating “whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” d 748, 753 (Minn. 2011).

State v. Jacobs (In re Jacobs)

Jackson I, d at 176; (explaining that “should” is a permissive term (quotation omitted)).

In assessing judicial bias, we consider whether “a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.”

Conduct Rule 2.4(A); d 9 453, 465 (Minn. 2021) (“[J]udges are presumed to have the ability to set aside extra-record knowledge and make decisions based solely on the merits of a case .”); (“[A] judge is required to ‘perform all duties of judicial office fairly and im partially’ and ‘shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge ’s judicial conduct or judgment.

“A judge is disqualified ‘due to an appearance of partiality’ if a ‘reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.’” ().

The proper standard for determining whether a judge must be disqualified for an appearance of partiality is “whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.”

A judge is disqualified under the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct if “a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question 6 the judge’s impartiality.”

A reasonable examiner is “an objective, unbiased layperson .”

“In deciding whether disqualification is required, the relevant question is ‘whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.’” Mouelle, d at 713 (d 748, 753 (Minn. 2011)).

The relevant question in a disqualification analysis is “whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circums tances, would question the judge’s partiality.”

“In deciding whether disqualification is required, the relevant question is ‘whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.’” Mouelle, d at 713 (q uoting In re Jacobs , ).

In deciding whether a disqualification is required, the relevant question is “whether a reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.”

In re Jacobs , , 753 (Minn. 2011).

Comment 5 to rule 2.11 states that “[a] judge should disclose on the record information th at the judge believes the par ties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification.” However, the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “the use of the word ‘should ’ indicates that the comment is not mandatory.” In re Jacobs

(“Like all legal issues, judges determine appearance of impropriety—not by considering what a straw poll of the only partly 5 informed man-in-the-street would show—but by examining the record facts and the law, and then deciding whether a reasonable pe

“A motion to remove a judge is procedural and therefore governed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.”