MOTION TO RECUSE DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE KATHERINE LEONARD FROM PRESIDING AS JUDGE IN THIS ACTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
MOTION TO RECUSE
This Motion is brought pursuant to Rule 7 of the Hawaii Rules ofCjyjJ Procedut:e and
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-7 and is supported by the Memorandum in Support
of Motion.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Katherine Leonard was asked to replace
a Hawaii Supreme Court Justice to hear a "Certified Question" that has been conveyed by
the US District Court to the Hawaii Supreme Court for answer in the Marcos Human
Rights Litigation. Under the principles of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-7 and Rule 2.11 of the
Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), Judge Leonard must recuse herself
from hearing the Certified Question. Judge Leonard's impartiality can reasonably be
questioned by an objective onlooker because she has previously ruled on the exact issue
presented in the Certified Question while sitting on the Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 120
Haw. 123, 202 P.3d 584 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009) case, which will also be heard on appeal
by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
II. BACKGROUND
As a Judge on the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (lCA), Judge Katherine
Leonard sat on Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 120 Haw. 123,202 P.3d 584 (Haw. Ct. App.
2009), which was granted a writ of certiorari by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Estate of
Roxas v. Marcos, 120 Haw. 123,202 P.3d 584 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), cert. granted, Civ.
No. 88-0522, slip op. at 1,2009 WL 1220647 (Haw. 2009). The Hawaii Supreme Court
1
MOTION TO RECUSE DISQUALIFY THE HONORABLE KATHERINE LEONARD FROM PRESIDING AS JUDGE IN THIS ACTION, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
MOTION TO RECUSE
This Motion is brought pursuant to Rule 7 of the Hawaii Rules ofCjyjJ Ptocedure and
Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) § 601-7 and is supported by the Memorandum in Support
of Motion.
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
I. INTRODUCTION
Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals Judge Katherine Leonard was asked to replace
a Hawaii Supreme Court Justice to hear a "Certified Question" that has been conveyed by
the US District Court to the Hawaii Supreme Court for answer in the Marcos Human
Rights Litigation. Under the principles of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-7 and Rule 2.11 of the
Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC), Judge Leonard must recuse herself
from hearing the Certified Question. Judge Leonard's impartiality can reasonably be
questioned by an objective onlooker because she has previously ruled on the exact issue
presented in the Certified Question while sitting on the Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 120
Haw. 123, 202 P.3d 584 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009) case, which will also be heard on appeal
by the Hawaii Supreme Court.
II. BACKGROUND
As a Judge on the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals (lCA), Judge Katherine
Leonard sat on Estate of Roxas v. Marcos, 120 Haw. 123,202 P.3d 584 (Haw. Ct. App.
2009), which was granted a writ of certiorari by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Estate of
Roxas v. Marcos, 120 Haw. 123,202 P.3d 584 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), cert. granted, Civ.
No. 88-0522, slip op. at 1,2009 WL 1220647 (Haw. 2009). The Hawaii Supreme Court
1
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
will hear likely hear the appeal in the Estate of Roxas v. Marcos case along with the
Certified Question that has been conveyed by the US District Court. Judge Leonard was
asked to sit on the Supreme Court panel that will hear the Certified Question, which will
address the exact issue on appeal in the Estate of Roxas v. Marcos case.
III. ISSUE
Whether Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-7 and Rule 2.11 of the Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial
Conduct prohibits Judge Leonard, an ICAjudge, from sitting on a Supreme Court panel
to decide a Certified Question conveyed by the US District Court when Judge Leonard
has recently decided the exact issue presented by the Certified Question as an ICA Judge.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. RECUSAL IS MANDATORY WHEN A JUDGE SITS ON AN APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OR JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE JUDGE.
This Court applies a two-part analysis when addressing a disqualification or
recusal case. State v. Ross, 89 Haw. 371,377,974 P.2d 11, 17 (1999). First, the Court
asks whether HRS § 601-7 covers the disqualifying bias or conflict of interest. Id. If
HRS § 601-7 does not cover the particular allegation the Court may then turn to notions
of due process in conducting the "broader inquiry of whether 'circumstances ... fairly
give rise to an appearance of impropriety and ... reasonably cast suspicion on the [the
judge's] impartiality. '" Id. (quoting State v. Brown, 70 Haw. 459, 467 n. 3, 776 P.2d
1182, 1188 n. 3 (1989».
HRS § 601-7(a)(2) states that a judge is prohibited from sitting "on an appeal
from any decision or judgment rendered by the judge." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-7(a)(2)
(Westlaw 2009). Judge Leonard would not technically violate Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-
2
will hear likely hear the appeal in the Estate of Roxas v. Marcos case along with the
Certified Question that has been conveyed by the US District Court. Judge Leonard was
asked to sit on the Supreme Court panel that will hear the Certified Question, which will
address the exact issue on appeal in the Estate of Roxas v. Marcos case.
III. ISSUE
Whether Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-7 and Rule 2.11 of the Hawaii Revised Code of Judicial
Conduct prohibits Judge Leonard, an ICAjudge, from sitting on a Supreme Court panel
to decide a Certified Question conveyed by the US District Court when Judge Leonard
has recently decided the exact issue presented by the Certified Question as an ICA Judge.
IV. ARGUMENT
A. RECUSAL IS MANDATORY WHEN A JUDGE SITS ON AN APPEAL FROM ANY DECISION OR JUDGMENT RENDERED BY THE JUDGE.
This Court applies a two-part analysis when addressing a disqualification or
recusal case. State v. Ross, 89 Haw. 371,377,974 P.2d 11, 17 (1999). First, the Court
asks whether HRS § 601-7 covers the disqualifying bias or conflict of interest. Id. If
HRS § 601-7 does not cover the particular allegation the Court may then turn to notions
of due process in conducting the "broader inquiry of whether 'circumstances ... fairly
give rise to an appearance of impropriety and ... reasonably cast suspicion on the [the
judge's] impartiality. '" Id. (quoting State v. Brown, 70 Haw. 459, 467 n. 3, 776 P.2d
1182, 1188 n. 3 (1989».
HRS § 601-7(a)(2) states that a judge is prohibited from sitting "on an appeal
from any decision or judgment rendered by the judge." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-7(a)(2)
(Westlaw 2009). Judge Leonard would not technically violate Haw. Rev. Stat. § 601-
2
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
7(a)(2) ifshe hears the Certified Questi on because the Certified Question is not
technicall y an appea l from a judgment she rendered as an ICA judge. The prin~
behind the statute requires .Judge Leonard to recuse herself.
The Fourth C ircuit I ourt of Appea ls addressed a similar situati on in Swann v.
Charl otte~eck l en~g B~. of Ed, 43 1 F.2d 135, 13 A.L.R. Fed. 850 (4th Cir. 1970) . In
Swan v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd . of Ed., Circuit Judge James Baxton Crave n recused
himse lf from a case dealing with the exact issue he had decided as a Distri ct Court Judge.
lfL. Judge Baxton, interpreting a fede ral statute stating that "' no judge shall hear or
determine an appea l from the decision of a case or issue tried by him,'" stated that the
purpose of the statute was to requ ire the Circuit Courts " to be constituted of judges
uncommitted and uninfluenced by having expressed or formed an o Pinio~ court of
the first instance." lfL. at 137. The same principle that reql ; red Judge Baxton to recuse --himself requires Judge Leonard to recuse herse lf because she has prev ious ly expressed
and formed an opinion regarding the issue presented in the Certi fied Question.
B. RECUSA L IS MA DATORY IN ANY PROCEEDING IN WHI CH THE JUDGE'S IMPARTI ALITY MI GHT REASONA BLY BE QUESTIONED.
Part two of the di squalification or recusa l analysis looks to notions of due process
applying the principles o f the Cl C. State v. Ross, at 378,974 P.2d II , 18. The Court in
Ross recognized that "as ide from the technical absence o f bias or confl ict o f interes t,
certain situations may give rise to such uncertainty concerning the abil ity of the judge to
rule impartially that d isqualification becomes necessary." ld. at 379, 974 P.2d I I , 19.
Rule 2. 11 (a) of the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct Rule states that "subject to
the rule of necessity, a judge shall disqualify or recuse himself or herself in any
proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, inc luding
3
1 I ,
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
, . .--,'lJi rV f
but not limited to the following circumstances. ,f w. Rev. Code of Jud. Conduct, Rule
2.11 (a) (West, Westlaw through Jan. 2009 amendments). The comments to Rule 2.11
state that "under this rule, a judge is disqualifi ed or recused whenever the judge's
impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific
provisions of Rule 2.11 (a) through (6) app ly." CJC, Comment [I] to Rule 2. 11.
Impartiality is defined as "an absence of bias or prejudice in favor of, or against,
particular parties or classes of parties, as well as maintenance of an open mind in
considering issues that come or may come before ajudge." CJC, Terminology.
CJC, Rule 1.2 further states that "ajudge shall act at all times in a man ner that
promotes pub li c confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the
judiciary and shall avo id impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." CJC, Ru le 1.2.
The CJC defines "appearance of impropriety" as "conduct that reasonable minds, with
knowledge of all the relevant circumstances, would percei ve as materially impairing the
judges independence, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to fu lfill the duti es
of judicial office." The Court in Ross stated that "the test for disqualification due to the
'appearance of impropriety' is an objective one, based not on the beliefs of the petitioner
or the judge, but on the assessment of a reasonable impartial onlooker appri sed of all the
facts." Ross, at 380, 974 P.2d 11 ,20.
"The test assumes the viewpoint of a reasonable onlooker, rather than the subj ective
belief of the judge." Ross al378, 974 P.2d II , 17. An objective, reasonable onlooker
could not believe that Judge Leonard 's presence on the Certified Question panel does not
present the "appearance of impropriety." A reasonable onlooker would find it difficult to
believe that Judge Leonard does not harbor any bias towards the exact issue that she has
4
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection
already decided in the ICA and that will likely be heard in the Hawaii Supreme Court
along with the Certified Question.
V. CONCLUSION
This Court stated that "in the administration of justice by a court of law, no principle is
better recognized as absolutely essential than that ever case, be it criminal or civil, and
the parties involved therein are entitled to the 'cold neutrality of an impartial judge. '"
Peters v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 262, 397 P.2d 575, 585 (1964). Based upon the
foregoing arguments and authority, and the promise made in Jamieson, Judge Leonard
should be disqualified or should recuse herself from hearing the Certified Question on the
Marcos Human Rights Litigation.
5
already decided in the ICA and that will likely be heard in the Hawaii Supreme Court
along with the Certified Question.
V. CONCLUSION
This Court stated that "in the administration of justice by a court of law, no principle is
better recognized as absolutely essential than that ever case, be it criminal or civil, and
the parties involved therein are entitled to the 'cold neutrality of an impartial judge. '"
Peters v. Jamieson, 48 Haw. 247, 262, 397 P.2d 575, 585 (1964). Based upon the
foregoing arguments and authority, and the promise made in Jamieson, Judge Leonard
should be disqualified or should recuse herself from hearing the Certified Question on the
Marcos Human Rights Litigation.
5
University of Hawaii School of Law Library - Jon Van Dyke Archives Collection