Opinion 7-11 Municipal Court Judge must recuse where there is an appearance of impartiality

Municipal Court Judge must recuse where there is an appearance of impartiality, not just actual conflict

   Judge can't hear police cases in town where his son is a cop.

  In the Matter of ADVISORY LETTER NO. 7--11 OF the SUPREME COURT ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES 213 NJ 63 (2013) 

    Disqualification is mandated if a "judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned," Canon 3(C)(1), or if there is a basis "which might reasonably lead counsel or the parties to believe" that the judge is unable to render a "fair and unbiased ... judgment," R. 1:12--1(g). Thus, judges must " 'refrain ... from sitting in any causes where their objectivity and impartiality may fairly be brought into question.' " DeNike, supra, 196 N.J. at 514, 958 A.2d 446 (quoting Deutsch, supra, 34 N.J. at 206, 168 A.2d 12). Those principles have been distilled to a simple question: "Would a reasonable, fully informed person have doubts about the judge's impartiality?" Id. at 517, 168 A.2d 12."

 The opinion concludes:

 "Judges must comply with extremely high standards of conduct, on and off the bench. To be sure, meeting those standards imposes considerable personal and professional burdens on members of the judiciary—burdens that may require significant sacrifices by judges and their families. Those standards are for the benefit of the public whom we, as judges, serve in administering our system of justice. By requiring disqualification whenever a fully informed person might reasonably question the impartiality of a judge, we guarantee that the judicial process will retain its high, preferred place in our democracy.