A conflict of interest, thus, is when I either have two interests in opposition to each other, or when I have a binding responsibility that is in opposition with an interest.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
So, if I understand this correctly, being married to an ex Pharm exec or having stock in pharmaceuticals and health insurance isn't a conflict of interest because Luigi's guilt or innocence isn't expected to affect her marrage or stocks? Do I have that right?
Also the basic principle that murdering someone of some particular class or group does not entitle you to have no one from that group involved in your prosecution for fuck’s sake.
Jesus! I was just trying to better understand the requirements and stipulations for recusal. There is no need to get hostile.
Cool your jets. This isn't Twitter. We're allowed to ask sincere questions here.
But then, US v. Nobel, US v. Sellers, Ravich, In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct, etc. If a judge doesn't self recuse or believe their own impartiality to be compromised, higher courts are very unlikely to make them.
And if so, what sort of situation would be a conflict of interest in this particular case, other than having a personal relationship with either the accused or the deceased? The only thing I can think of is something like stock in a private prison. But then that would be the case in every trial.
1. A personal relationship with parties, attorneys, and/or victims
2. A large enough financial position to be directly implicated by the result (lots of stock, the position being more recent, fund vs. Portfolio vs. More direct trade)...
3. Having been a lawyer for one of the parties, victims, or attorneys in the past
4. In a few states, if a campaign donor is involved (some states have gone the other way)
Comments
We all have them. we can't turn them off.
The BEST case is indifference. And, I'm sorry to report, indifference is, by its very nature, unable to survive contact with the facts.
Otherwise "representing clients" would be a conflict, because I profit from it.
Because it's my job.
The system allows that I can always prioritize a client's matter even though I have an interest in it because it has to!
You need, like, both words.
These are terms with legal definitions and literal centuries of case law guiding them.
That precedent is what matters, not what you or I think.
That's happened enough that we have a voluminous body of law on reasonability.
It's not "whatever I, a layman, think is reasonable."
It's taught a fairly colloquial way because it makes sense that way and that was the core aim.
But this is one if those questions that has been answered so many thousands of times we kinda know the answer in most situation.
/s
Cool your jets. This isn't Twitter. We're allowed to ask sincere questions here.
But, yes, you'd have to have a conflict.
You're gonna struggle articulating a theory under which anything that happens to this kid effects a Pfizer investment, per your ?
But then, US v. Nobel, US v. Sellers, Ravich, In re Charges of Judicial Misconduct, etc. If a judge doesn't self recuse or believe their own impartiality to be compromised, higher courts are very unlikely to make them.
1. A personal relationship with parties, attorneys, and/or victims
2. A large enough financial position to be directly implicated by the result (lots of stock, the position being more recent, fund vs. Portfolio vs. More direct trade)...
4. In a few states, if a campaign donor is involved (some states have gone the other way)