Bill: Rejected Judicial Officer Recusal Fix Act

[CaseyLeFaye]

A
BILL
To

Amend the Judicial Standards Act and the Constitution​

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:

1 - Short Title and Enactment
(1) This Act may be cited as the 'Judicial Officer Recusal Fix Act.'
(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.
(3) This Act has been authored by Rep. CaseyLeFaye.
(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Rep. UnityMaster.

2 - Reasons
(1) The Recusal section of the Judicial Standards Act uses “Judge” instead of “Judicial Officer,” which restricts ruling on recusals to Judges from a hyper-textualist interpretation. Changing “Judge” to “Judicial Officer” leaves no room for debate.
(2) It is also not specified whether Judicial Officers need to have authority in the Court to make recusals or not. While it may seem obvious, it is still better to be safe than sorry.
(3) This Act also clarifies grounds for recusal, for the sake of protecting citizens’ right to a fair trial and maintaining integrity in the judicial system.
(4) Section 24 is already covered in the Standardized Criminal Code Act.

3 - Terms
(1) The Judicial Standards Act shall be amended as follows:

“16 - Recusal​

(1) Judicial disqualification, also referred to as recusal, is the act of abstaining from participation in a case due to a conflict of interest.​

(2) A motion to recuse can be filed at any point in a case prior to the verdict. A Judge Judicial Officer must consider whether or not to voluntarily recuse themselves.​

(3) Where a judge Judicial Officer does not voluntarily recuse, a second Judge Judicial Officer with the ability to preside over cases in that court (i.e. recusals in the District Court may be ruled on by any Judicial Officer, recusals in the Federal Court may be ruled on by a Judge or Justice, and recusals in the Supreme Court may only be ruled on by a Justice) will respond to the motion and either accept or deny it. In the instance the judge Judicial Officer accepts the motion, that judge Judicial Officer will then preside over the case.​

(4) Conflict of interest may involve:​

(a) Bias,/ appearance of bias, and/or a strong probability of bias.​

(i) If a Judicial Officer has expressed bias or had an appearance of bias before becoming a Judicial Officer, it will still be a valid reason to recuse.​

(b) Interest.​

(c) Ex Parte Communications.​

(d) Breach of Judicial Conduct.​

(e) Prior Work as a Lawyer for either party.​

(5) If a specific source of conflict of interest applies to all Judicial Officers due to its nature (e.g. there is a lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of an Act regarding all Judicial Officers), then that source shall not be grounds for recusal by itself.​

(6) It shall be viable grounds for a case to be appealed if a Judicial Officer fails to recuse from a case where they have a clear conflict of interest.​

​

. . .​

​

24 - Sentencing​

(1) Where there is a continued threat to player safety or enjoyment due to the commission of crime, the prosecuting authority can impose punishment prior to a trial.​

a. Where an individual is found guilty at trial, any punishment already undertaken will be deemed spent.​

b. Where an individual is found innocent at trial, they shall be compensated up to $50 per minute spent in jail for offences found unproven, alongside a reimbursement of any fine paid for unproven offences.”​

(a) Numberings of sections shall be updated to reflect these changes.