Due-process-recusal

Questions PRESENTED , 1. Woes the Due Process Clause, requice the cecusal of a trial , fudge. where the trial judge Knew the viekin in a murder case . trled befoce them ? , 2a. Doea the Caperten stendard fac Judicial tecusal apply toncecning “conflict arising Trom their partic: pation tn an eorlier ; Proceeding,” uuhereby the trial judge wee. to be the murder vietiin’s foster care judge just three years beSoce the murder teial 7 Caperton v. Massey » PS6 U.S, 863 (2004) . , 3. Are the recusal standards, Volunterily acopted by a Dtate, . uubich Uses mandatory language, and happens to be more rigorus than the Due Process Clause, and made a part of the State’s . Code of Wudicial Conduct , mandatory or advisory and . discretionary * Atso, does a violation of the Canons under the . State s Code of Tudicial Conduct make the Judgment void,or ie . ik an ercor thet la merely voidable ? 4. For the Murchison standard of Due Process, coeds a former . foster care Judge have @ continued interest in the well-being ota . child who spent years in Yester care under thet Audge % Aireck . author ky , Yor which continued interest would later preclude thet Focmec Poster core judge from beta the trial gudge ina murder cose. Where that person 1s the vietla? In Re Murchison , 347 U.S. 133 (1455). 5. Does the Stete courts continued reliance on State court ; Precedent, whereby the moving party must prove “actual bias” . it . tor judicial reeusal » directly go againat this Court’ more fecent , Precedent imhece “actual bias? ve not. required 2. a B. Ts Due Process violated when a revietuing court ceXuased tbo Bile a motion to vacate agan independent civil actlen , but instead , Filed ie as port of the atiginal eximinal record 2 Furthermore, 18 the ; Teviewsing court required te follow the standard of review set by , this Court and the Stete “s Highest court undes a civil Sling which , fecognized a courts inherent equity power bo entertain such Rings? , 7. Does a failure to provide a standard of cewiew specifying . ushat type of Sraud oc level of fraud is required tac a Petitioner . to establah “extrinsie Fraud’ deprive the Petitioner of oe equitable Due Process ° ; 8. Ls a Petitioner dented equitable relief when a reviewing , ; court ie allowed to use a prior Audgment , made before the . disclosure (oc discovery) of Fraud , to declare thet the Perit! over as not negatively impacted by the fraud ° . 9. Does the withholding of a Defendant S case Hle From the, . Defendant beyond the Lime to file a petition Tor habeas , excuse , the Defendant From Faulk or negleet * in Failing to present the Facts Sar qudictal recusal at trial, direct appeal ond habeas , Teviews ° in _Lxst Of Partres ; All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. | Revatep Cases © Comm. of Virginia v. Cooper, No. CRO®928-34, Cireuit Court of Arkingtan County. Tudgment entered Merch 5, 2003. * Cooper v. Comm. of Virginia, No. 0819-0374, Court of Appeals of Virginia dudgqment entered August ad, 2004. * Cooper v Comm. of Virginia , No. 0427, Supreme Court of , Vieginia . Wudgmeat anteted Wanuary 27, 2005. , ‘ Cooper v. Robinson, No. 06-56, Circuit Court of Arlington County. , Dudgment entered May 12, 2006. * Cooper v. Robson, No. 061873, Supreme Court of Virginia. Judgment entered November 30, 2006. ; * Cooper v. Vohason, No. 107 0V 1034, LS. Disttict Court for the . Eastern Diatdet of Virginia. Tudgment entered February 41, 2008. . * Cooper v. Tohnson, No. O86384, U.S. Court of Appeals for the . Fourth Cfreuit. Judgment entered Tune 25, 2008. . , Cooper v. Dohnson, No. CBMEG, Supreme Court of The Lined . Stecea Judgment entered February 23, 2004. , iv | * Comm. of Vitginia Vv. Cooper, No. CRo2 F728 BY , Cirevik Court of AcLington County. Tadament entered anuary 28, 2008. — , ° Cooper v. dohnson , No. 080674 + Supreme Court of Virginia . | dudgment entered May ©, 2002. Comm. of Vitginia Vv. Cooper , No. CRoa -928-34, Cireurk Court of | Actingten County tudgment entered dune