If Judge Chutkan thinks the January 6 riot was an attempt to overthrown the government of the United States, who does she believe is responsible for that day’s events?
According to the Fairfield Sun Times, “(a) review of thousands of pages of hearing transcripts reveal that Chutkan has repeatedly expressed strong and settled opinions about the issues at the heart of United States v. Donald Trump – the criminal case she is now presiding over. These include her public assertions…that the Jan. 6 protests were orchestrated by Trump, and that the former president is guilty of crimes. She has described Jan. 6 as a ‘mob attack’ on ‘the very foundation of our democracy’ and branded the issue at the heart of the case she is hearing – Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was stolen – a conspiracy theory.”
Further, “(b)efore sentencing Christine Priola, a Trump supporter from Ohio who pleaded guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding, to 15 months in jail, Chutkan appeared to lament the fact Trump was not yet in prison. ‘[The] people who mobbed that Capitol were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man – not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant, not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy,’ Chutkan said on Oct. 28, 2022. ‘It’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.’ (Emphasis added.)”
In the case of Matthew Mazzocco, “another Jan. 6 defendant, (Chutkan rejected) Mazzocco’s argument that he traveled from Texas to Washington to engage in a legal political demonstration (and) declared at his October 2021 sentencing hearing: ‘He went there to support one man who he viewed had the election taken from him. In total disregard of a lawfully conducted election, he went to the Capitol in support of one man, not in support of our country or in support of democracy.’ Although Mazzocco only spent 12 minutes inside the Capitol and committed no violence, Chutkan rejected the government’s recommendation of three months home confinement for pleading guilty to “parading” in the Capitol, a Class B misdemeanor, and instead sentenced Mazzocco to 45 days in jail.”
In other words, the Judge who has publicly stated that “one man” disregarded “a lawfully conducted election” and that this “one man” is responsible for “an attack on the very foundation of our democracy,” who also calls the January 6 riot “an attempt to overthrow the government” is now the Judge assigned to hear charges brought against that one man, arising out of the events of January 6 – Donald J. Trump.
Obviously, the former President’s lawyers also know that a judge “who’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” should recuse themselves from hearing that case. In that regard, a motion was made before Judge Chutkan, asking that these charges be heard by another judge. Her response?
“U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan said…she won’t recuse herself from Donald Trump’s 2020 election interference case in Washington, rejecting the former president’s claims that her past comments raise doubts about whether she can be fair… In seeking Chutkan’s recusal, defense lawyers cited statements she had made in two sentencing hearings of participants in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol in which they said she had appeared to suggest that Trump deserved to be prosecuted and held accountable. They said the comments suggested a bias against him that could taint the proceedings. But Chutkan vigorously objected to those characterizations of her comments. ‘It bears noting that the court has never taken the position the defense ascribes to it: that former “President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned,’’ Chutkan wrote. ‘And the defense does not cite any instance of the court ever uttering those words or anything similar.’”
Yes, you read that right. In the past, Judge Chutkan has stated that one man, who remains free, is responsible for the January 6th “attempt to overthrow the government,” based on that one man’s refusal to accept the results of a “lawfully conducted” election. But because she never actually identified that one man by name, she believes she can be fair.
Even while she has imposed harsher sentences than most of her judicial brethren on the people she believes followed that one man.
Maybe Judge Chutkan believes this nonsense. Maybe she can compartmentalize her views from the evidence she hears, and maybe she can give Donald Trump a fair trial.
Maybe.
But what this judge has forgotten, is that the obligation to be fair and impartial is only part of a Court’s obligation. A judge is also required to avoid the appearance of partiality. According to Cannon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, “(a) Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities…(a)n appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.”
In practice, the requirement to avoid the appearance of unfairness and bias is stronger than the necessity to avoid actual partiality and prejudice. “A federal district judge who spoke to a newspaper to clarify procedural matters should have recused herself from the case because her comments could have been interpreted to indicate that she was biased, even though the judge in no way abdicated her ethical responsibilities by speaking, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston (1st Cir.) ruled on Feb. 5 (2001)…the court found that (the judge) should have recused herself because a reader might interpret her comments as evidence of bias. Even though she did not violate judicial ethics, the court said just a perception of bias was sufficient for recusal.”
Judge Chutkan has made a series of statements in a number of cases where she has handed out tough sentences to January 6th Defendants, laying the blame for their conduct on the one man who now stands before her seeking a fair and impartial hearing. Even if she can separate her personal animosity from her obligation to hear the case with an unbiased ear, who truly believes she will actually give Donald Trump a fair trial?
Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC
Illustration: Pixabay