LAST EDITED ON 11-02-05 AT 06:44 AM (EST)

Both a recusal and a change of venue result in a change of forum for the defendant, so they are kinda alike. But the standard is far different. For recusal, the standard is that there shouldn't be the appearance of a conflict of interest for the judge. Even if the judge is pure as the driven snow, the judge may be recused due to a perceived conflict (example: judge owns 100 shares of Microsoft stock and is recused from Microsoft bias case, even though judge actually couldn't care less if stock becomes worthless). But for a change of venue, the standard is that the local jury pool has been "poisoned" by negative publicity, thus making it impossible to seat an honest and fair jury.

In the case of recusal, the idea is to avoid giving the loser the appearance of impropriety.

Edited to add: Yes, I was referring to DeLay as the loser. That's what happens when you get tired -- your true thoughts come out. But whether DeLay will actually lose this case is an open question, because it seems to me that it's entirely a question of interpretation.

I actually GOT that!
One more question:
Is there an unlimited number of recusals one's lawyer(s) can move for or can they be exhausted eventually?

I ask this because I wonder if this could be used as a way to delay the trial interminably.

Theoretically, you could keep asking for judges to be recused until doomsday.

However, most motions for recusal are not granted. One of my friends was trying a high-profile case, and the judge said to him in a pre-trial meeting in chambers that he was rejecting a plea arrangement with the prosecution because he was going to make sure that this client was convicted of the most serious charge. Bias, right? I mean, the case hadn't even begun to be tried, and the judge was provlaiming the client guilty.

My friend filed for recusal. His motion ultimately went all the way to the state Supreme Court. He lost.

Not every judge in Texas will have contributed to MoveOn.org, so it won't be too long before the recusal motions by DeLay's lawyers would be denied, and the trial will go forward.

However, I also expect for DeLay's lawyers to move for a change in venue. That, after all, was what DeGuerin did in his previous high-profile case against Ronnie Earle ... and that will slow things down some more.

But for a change of venue, the standard is that the local jury pool has been "poisoned" by negative publicity, thus making it impossible to seat an honest and fair jury.

There has to be a standard for poisoning the jury pool against the prosecutor too, no? Like, say, through tv ads attacking him?

If Delay were so convinced of his innocence, why does he have to campain for acquittal?

well, considering that right here in good old Colln county a judge who was having an affair with a prosecutor in a death penalty case didn't recuse herself, it seems like this is a pretty minor conflict in comparison.

Of course, there is a big difference between the defendants in the two cases - one is the mighty Tom Delay and the other is just some poor kid who got within a week of being executed and who still sits on death row.

It's funny how no Plano-ites get too concerned about Charles Hood but their designer panties are all wadded up about Mr. Delay.

Texas justice. yee effing haw.

My panties are all wadded up over Mr. Delay, but probably not in the same way as the Plano-ites.

It seems to me that the Democratic party hacks should want judge Perkins to step aside.

If he were to be found guilty in a Perkins court, the right could hold him up as a martyr and rally around him; there is the obvious conflict of interest here, even if Perkins wore blinders. If he is found not guilty, it goes away.

If he were to be found guilty in a more "friendly" court, the left has the best of both worlds. Justice and political advantage. If he would be found not guilty, they have the rally point, claiming (true or not, doesn't matter) that he shopped for a judge that wouldn't let him be convicted. And of course, a conviction has its obvious advantages.

Seems clear to me that they should let Delay get his new judge and jury. Theoretically justice should be served, and even if he is found not guilty they have the political advantage.

After all, they did shop 4 different grand juries until they found the right one

So, in conclusion, judges who duck hunt with litagees should also be recused?

Just askin.