A North Carolina federal trial judge’s sharp commentary about dogfighting, delivered at the time he sentenced five defendants, was “injudicious” and “indecorous” but did not rise to the level requiring the court to step aside for alleged impartiality, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Thursday.

The appellate court’s ruling in United States v. Richardson, upholding prison terms tied to a dogfighting investigation, offered to lawyers and the judiciary more broadly an extended analysis of the high bar for recusal.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]