## Facts

- Rodrigo Mejia was charged in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with misdemeanor sexual abuse of his nine-year-old niece, J.C., based on allegations he touched her genital area under her clothing while she was in bed.
- J.C. initially reported the abuse in an interview with a police detective, which was recorded.
- Before trial, J.C. recanted; during trial preparation, the prosecutor warned her about lying and played the recorded interview, after which she returned to her original account.
- In a bench trial, J.C. testified the abuse occurred and explained her recantation was driven by family concerns and fear her uncle could be sent back to El Salvador.
- After announcing a guilty verdict and discussing sentencing logistics, the trial judge made comments referencing Mejia’s national origin and generalized “cultural” practices involving very young girls and marriage; the judge stated uncertainty about whether such issues were relevant and invited counsel to provide information.
- Mejia did not move for recusal in the trial court and appealed, asserting the remarks showed bias or an appearance of bias requiring reversal and reassignment.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s post-verdict remarks tying Mejia’s El Salvadoran background to generalized “cultural” practices demonstrated actual bias or an appearance of bias violating due process.
2. Whether the remarks required recusal and reversal (or reassignment) under due process and District of Columbia judicial ethics standards, given the lack of a contemporaneous recusal motion.

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction.
- The court characterized the judge’s remarks as troubling and ill-advised but held they did not establish constitutionally disqualifying bias or an appearance of bias requiring reversal.
- The court emphasized the remarks occurred after the verdict and were made in the context of discussing sentencing-related matters, not while deciding guilt.
- Because Mejia did not seek recusal below, the court reviewed for plain error and found the record did not meet that standard.

## Legal Principles

- Due process guarantees a criminal defendant an impartial judge; reversal is warranted for actual bias or when the probability of actual bias is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
- The appearance-of-impartiality inquiry asks whether a reasonable, informed observer would question the judge’s impartiality based on all the circumstances.
- Judicial ethics in the District of Columbia require disqualification when a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including for perceived prejudice based on national origin.
- Where no recusal motion is made at trial, appellate review of alleged judicial bias generally proceeds under plain-error principles, requiring a clear or obvious error affecting substantial rights and the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.
- Post-verdict commentary that is speculative, qualified by expressions of uncertainty, and disconnected from the stated evidentiary basis for guilt may be improper yet insufficient to show that the verdict was the product of bias.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Mejia’s conviction, concluding that the trial judge’s post-verdict cultural generalizations, though improper, did not show that national-origin bias influenced the guilt determination or created an appearance of partiality sufficient to require recusal or reversal, particularly under plain-error review.


Mejia v. United States, 916 A.2d 900 (D.C. 2007)