Carole Krechman v. County of Riverside
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1ConcurrenceN.R. Smith, Circuit Judge
I agree with the majority’s opinion in this case. I write separately to address Krechman’s judicial bias claim.1 I agree it is unnecessary to reach this claim, given our reversal of the district court’s Rule 50 decision. However, Krechman’s arguments identify conduct that is worrisome enough that it warrants some mention.
“A judge’s participation justifies a new trial ... if the record shows actual bias or leaves an abiding impression that the jury perceived an appearance of advocacy or partiality.” United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 537 (9th Cir.1988). Here, the district judge conducted…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hunter v. BryantSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- United States v. Aleksandrs v. LaurinsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Karen Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Department City of Los Angeles James J. King Stanley A. SchottCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Robert Shad, Molly Shad, and Samantha Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., a Corporation Milton Ponitz and Lee McMahonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Richard Hurles v. Charles L. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2013
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.