Postconviction Motion-Recusal-Bias

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. James Allen Nichols

Case No.: 2021AP001369

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Gill, JJ.

Focus: Postconviction Motion-Recusal-Bias

In 2007, following a jury trial, Nichols was convicted of second-degree intentional homicide, hiding a corpse, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Nichols appeals from an order denying both his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2021-22) postconviction motion and his motion for the Honorable Jane M. Sequin to recuse herself from deciding his postconviction motion. He also appeals an order denying his motion for reconsideration. Nichols argues that Judge Sequin was subjectively and objectively biased and should not have ruled on his postconviction motion. Further, he contends that the circuit court erred when it denied his postconviction motion without a hearing.  The court concludes that Nichols fails to show by a preponderance of evidence that there was a serious risk of actual bias by Judge Sequin. Nichols’ argument can be summarized as follows: Judge Miron was biased when he presided over Nichols’ prior trial in 2018and, through a professional and personal relationship with Miron, Judge Sequin could not impartially decide Nichols’ June 2018 motion. These assertions are far from the “extreme facts” necessary to establish a serious risk of actual bias and do not lead the court to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that a reasonable person would question Judge Sequin’s impartiality

Affirmed.

Decided 01/09/24

Full Text