Criminal Law Society Blog
Abstract
The Due Process Clause guarantees criminal defendants an impartial adjudicator, yet post-conviction proceedings often escape meaningful judicial recusal. In Pennsylvania, the same judge who presided over a criminal trial commonly adjudicates that defendant’s post-conviction review, even when prior rulings are challenged. This Article argues that such self-review creates an objectively intolerable risk of bias, undermining due process and public confidence in the judiciary. Drawing on Supreme Court precedent and psychological research on confirmation bias, the Article demonstrates that existing recusal standards fail to address structural risks in post-conviction adjudication. It proposes legislative reform mandating judicial recusal when a judge previously presided over the same case, better safeguarding fairness, judicial integrity, and constitutional protections.
Recommended Citation
Banks, Taylor
()
"A "Simple" Second Look: The Argument for Mandatory Judicial Recusal in Pennsylvania Post Conviction Hearings,"
Criminal Law Society Blog: Vol. 1, Article 1.
Available at:
https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/clsblog/vol1/iss1/1