## Facts

- Jim Garrison, the elected District Attorney for Orleans Parish, was arrested by federal agents on June 30, 1971, on alleged federal offenses, released on bail, and later waived a preliminary examination.
- A special federal grand jury indicted Garrison and others on December 3, 1971, alleging a conspiracy to obstruct state or local law enforcement, including receipt of “protection” bribe money tied to illegal gambling operations.
- Before trial, Garrison moved to recuse the assigned district judge under federal disqualification statutes, alleging bias and prejudice.
- The motion relied chiefly on (1) the judge’s prior participation in a civil case involving Garrison’s official conduct as district attorney, which included adverse findings and strong judicial criticism, and (2) Garrison’s subsequent public press release denouncing the federal judiciary and the earlier ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether a judge must be disqualified for “personal bias or prejudice” when the asserted bias is based on adverse findings and criticism expressed in a prior judicial opinion concerning the movant’s official conduct.
2. Whether a litigant’s public attacks on the judge or judiciary, made after such a ruling, can require recusal on the theory that the judge can no longer remain impartial.

## Decision

- The court denied Garrison’s motion to recuse.
- Accepting the affidavit’s factual assertions as true, the court held they were legally insufficient to establish disqualifying “personal bias or prejudice” under the federal recusal statutes.
- The court concluded that the complained-of views arose from prior judicial proceedings, and that a party’s own public denunciations cannot create a right to disqualification.

## Legal Principles

- Disqualifying bias generally must be personal and rooted in an extra-judicial source, not in opinions formed or expressed while performing judicial duties.
- Prior judicial rulings, findings, or strongly worded criticism based on the record do not, without more, establish “personal bias or prejudice” requiring recusal.
- A litigant cannot force disqualification by engaging in offensive or hostile public conduct toward the judge; allowing this would permit parties to manufacture recusals and manipulate judge assignment.
- Recusal is not warranted merely because prior litigation produced friction between a judge and a party; impartiality is presumed absent legally cognizable facts showing personal partiality.

## Conclusion

The court held that allegations grounded in prior judicial criticism of Garrison’s official conduct, coupled with Garrison’s later public attacks on the judge and federal judiciary, did not show the kind of personal, extra-judicial bias required for disqualification, and it therefore denied the recusal motion.


United States v. Garrison, 340 F. Supp. 952 (E.D. La. 1972)