My question involves court procedures for the state of: Ga
OK...I've got a scenario that I've never come across before, but might again in the future and want to know what you'd recommend and why...
Here's the background: On Plaintiff's side of a civil dispute. The case is rock solid and if it ever goes to trial, there is no reason why Plaintiff wouldn't win. However, once I found out who opposing counsel was as well as the judge, I'd knew that favorites would be played somehow and somewhere along the way. My experience has been that if a judge does play favorites (bias, favoritism, etc...), it's very subtle, really can't be proven, and just something you have to power through, especially as the new kid on the block, since I am not as well known yet. However, when this combo came up, I knew things would be different, but didn't know how or in what way.... until a motion to dismiss was filed. What was presented in the motion was paper thin legal logic, misguided notions, and conclusions that were not legally sound. Now when I read this, I knew that no matter how I replied or how I could overcome the legal arguments in the motion, I would be defeated in hearing (but would win on appeal - it was that weak). Sure enough, my reply contained just enough to what should've overcome the motion, including using his own arguments against him. As I predicted, the hearing did not end well for Plaintiff. What I did not anticipate was just how NOT subtle the judge would be in showing bias and preferential treatment to opposing counsel. I literally walked away from the hearing with my jaw dropped as low and it could go, not because I had lost (remember, it was expected), but at how blatant the bias was. Sure enough, the transcript bears it out quite well.
Now, onto my question.... There is no doubt that this will be reversed as the standard of review is a Question of Law (so no deference), but my question is this....Once it is remanded back to the lower court, should I have the previous judge removed for bias (again, transcript is quite blatant on the issue)? My two lines of thought are 1) Yes (for obvious reasons, but since I have to first file a motion with him about the issue, he could deny it and quite possibly be "annoyed" at me for having done so), and 2) No, because now that the judge has been put on alert/notice of the obvious bias, he might make a concerted effort to NOT appear biased on future dealings, and fact may overcompensate in doing so and actually have the Plaintiff receive the benefit of "reverse-bias".
[Keep in mind that the bias is not a product of anti-me....but more of a pro-someone else because of their long term working relationship] What are your thoughts/experience?
OK...I've got a scenario that I've never come across before, but might again in the future and want to know what you'd recommend and why...
Here's the background: On Plaintiff's side of a civil dispute. The case is rock solid and if it ever goes to trial, there is no reason why Plaintiff wouldn't win. However, once I found out who opposing counsel was as well as the judge, I'd knew that favorites would be played somehow and somewhere along the way. My experience has been that if a judge does play favorites (bias, favoritism, etc...), it's very subtle, really can't be proven, and just something you have to power through, especially as the new kid on the block, since I am not as well known yet. However, when this combo came up, I knew things would be different, but didn't know how or in what way.... until a motion to dismiss was filed. What was presented in the motion was paper thin legal logic, misguided notions, and conclusions that were not legally sound. Now when I read this, I knew that no matter how I replied or how I could overcome the legal arguments in the motion, I would be defeated in hearing (but would win on appeal - it was that weak). Sure enough, my reply contained just enough to what should've overcome the motion, including using his own arguments against him. As I predicted, the hearing did not end well for Plaintiff. What I did not anticipate was just how NOT subtle the judge would be in showing bias and preferential treatment to opposing counsel. I literally walked away from the hearing with my jaw dropped as low and it could go, not because I had lost (remember, it was expected), but at how blatant the bias was. Sure enough, the transcript bears it out quite well.
Now, onto my question.... There is no doubt that this will be reversed as the standard of review is a Question of Law (so no deference), but my question is this....Once it is remanded back to the lower court, should I have the previous judge removed for bias (again, transcript is quite blatant on the issue)? My two lines of thought are 1) Yes (for obvious reasons, but since I have to first file a motion with him about the issue, he could deny it and quite possibly be "annoyed" at me for having done so), and 2) No, because now that the judge has been put on alert/notice of the obvious bias, he might make a concerted effort to NOT appear biased on future dealings, and fact may overcompensate in doing so and actually have the Plaintiff receive the benefit of "reverse-bias".
[Keep in mind that the bias is not a product of anti-me....but more of a pro-someone else because of their long term working relationship] What are your thoughts/experience?
Motions: Should You Remove the Judge for Bias
