Cited by

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (reviewing a similar judicial-disqualification claim for plain error).

(analyzing recusal request in criminal proceedings).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (reviewing a similar judicial-disqualification claim for plain error).

n.3 (Minn. 2015) (reviewing a judicial-disqualification claim for plain error); see also Schlienz, d at 366-67 (considering whether an ex parte communication between the district court judge and the prosecutor constituted plain error).

“A motion to remove a judge is procedural and therefore governed b y the Rules of Criminal Procedure.” (quotation omitted).

Appellant argues first that the district court judge who presided over the revocation hearing was not impartial because, when he presided over the sentencing hearing, he told appellant “[C]ase law [] tells me I can’t say that I’m not going to give you any chances if you violate probation – off to prison you go .

“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.’” ().

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

“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.” (quotation omitted).

A. Structural-error analysis Structural errors “deprive defendants of basic protections without which a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” (quotations omitted).

Id.; d 696, 703 (Minn. 2015) (noting that the substantial right at iss ue is not the outcome of the case, but rather the right to a fair hearing before an impartial judge).

(stating that the district court errs when it deprives a defendant of “his right under Minn. R. Crim.

This standard is met when a “reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” State v. Finch , (quotation omitted) .

McClelland v. Pierce , , 219 (Minn. 1985) ; cf. State v. Finch , , 700 (Minn. 2015) ("We have held that the denial of a peremptory removal must be challenged via a petition for a writ of prohibition.").

State v. Finch , n.3 (Minn. 2015).

“[A] n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” ().

“[A]n error affects a defendant ’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” State v. Finch

(applying harmless-error standard to district court’s failure to follow proper procedure for disqualification motion).

“[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ 4 on the verdict.” State v. Finch , ( (Mi nn.

“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.” (quotation omitted).

This standard is met when a “reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” ().

d 696, 700 (Minn. 2015).

d 696, 701 (Minn. 2015).

First, Karmoeddien argues that the district court prejudged his probation-revocation hearing

Put another way, an error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a significant effect on the verdict.” (quotations and citation omitted); (stating that “[a] plain error affects the substantial rights of the defendant when there is a reasonable 7 likelihood that the error substantially aff

“[B]efore revoking probation, the court must: ‘1) designate the specific condition or conditions that were violated; 2) find that the violation was intentional or inexcusable; and 3) find that [the] need for confinement outweighs the policies favoring probation.’” -05 (Minn. 2015) (alteration in original) ().

A judge’s impartiality is reasonably questioned when a “reasonable examiner, with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances, would question the judge’s impartiality.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

“[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” (quoting State v. Sontoya ).

–05 (Minn. 2015) (stating that a judge’s remarks that he would revoke probation for any violation indicated that the “judge could not impartially make the findings required by the second and third Austin factors”).

“[A]n error affects a defendant’s substantial rights if there is a reasonable likelihood that the error had a ‘significant effect’ on the verdict.” ().