Seem to me, as your ALL high ranking members of the NPA, there is the appearance here that the judge and AG should recuse themselves.
There is no conflict of interest provision for the AG, nor is there a recusal requirement following from that. As well, none of the three Justices nor the Standby Hearing Officer are members of the NPA at all.Seem to me, as your ALL high ranking members of the NPA, there is the appearance here that the judge and AG should recuse themselves.
"Holding a membership in the same body as one another" is a pretty big stretch of what constitutes a conflict of interest - especially since, if true, that would bar any member of the RA from sitting as justice for a criminal case against any other member of the RA. "Vested interest" means having a personal stake in the outcome - for example, a sitting justice running for delegate should recuse themselves from a criminal case against another candidate for delegate, because they personally benefit if that person is convicted (by making the race easier for them to win).4. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a vested interest in a matter before the Court, or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.
I call bullshit.Excerpt from sentencing:Further, the defendant does not appear remorseful or to regret their actions.
I don’t think asking and getting a one word answer is proof enough.