Legal Definitions - presumed bias

Presumed bias refers to a situation where an individual involved in a legal or official proceeding is automatically assumed to be prejudiced or partial due to a particular relationship, financial interest, or circumstance, even without direct proof that they are actually unfair. The law presumes that such a connection would influence their judgment, requiring them to step aside to ensure fairness and maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the process.

Here are some examples illustrating presumed bias:

• Example 1: A Judge and a Family Member's Case

  Imagine a judge is assigned to preside over a civil lawsuit where one of the primary parties is a company owned by their spouse. Even if the judge genuinely believes they can be completely impartial and rule fairly, the law would typically presume bias due to the close marital and financial relationship. To avoid any appearance of impropriety and ensure public trust in the judicial system, the judge would almost certainly be required to recuse themselves (step down) from the case, allowing another judge to take over.

• Example 2: A Juror with a Close Connection to a Party

  During jury selection for a criminal trial involving a serious assault, a potential juror reveals that they are the first cousin of the victim. While the juror might sincerely state that they can set aside their personal feelings and judge the evidence objectively, the court would likely presume bias. The close family relationship creates a strong assumption that the juror would naturally favor their relative, making it difficult for them to impartially evaluate the defendant's guilt or innocence. This presumption would lead to their disqualification from the jury.

• Example 3: An Official with a Financial Stake in a Decision

  Consider a member of a city's planning commission who is tasked with voting on a proposal to approve a new commercial development. It is discovered that this commission member owns a significant parcel of land directly adjacent to the proposed development, and its approval would substantially increase the value of their personal property. In this scenario, the law would presume bias. Even if the commission member argues they are voting solely on the merits of the proposal and the public good, their direct financial interest in the outcome creates a strong presumption that their decision would be influenced by personal gain rather than objective public interest. They would typically be required to abstain from the vote or recuse themselves from the decision-making process.