英语翻译The procedures for recusal of judges set out in Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases.See State ex rel.Rosenthal v.Poe,98 S.W.3d 194,198 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (orig.proceeding).This Court will grant mandamus relief if De L

2019-04-17

下载本文

英语翻译
The procedures for recusal of judges set out in Rule 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure apply in criminal cases.See State ex rel.Rosenthal v.Poe,98 S.W.3d 194,198 (Tex.Cr.App.2003) (orig.proceeding).This Court will grant mandamus relief if De Leon can demonstrate that the act sought to be compelled is purely “ministerial” and that De Leon has no adequate legal remedy.
The Court of Appeals stated tha Respondent,therefore,claims that he had no duty to recuse himself or to refer the recusal motion for another judge to decide.Respondent argues that he did not violate Rule 18a because he merely exercised his power to determine that De Leon's recusal motion did not present a “prima facie case justifying recusal.” See Chavez,at 112-13; see also McClenan v.State,661 S.W.2d 108,110 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) (in order for Rule 18a to come into play,motion must be prima facie adequate and allege proper grounds upon which a recusal is sought).t the law has developed in criminal cases “that a criminal trial judge may make an initial determination as to whether the recusal motion conforms with Rule 18a(a)” even though case law “in civil cases is starkly different.”
.

优质解答

德州民事诉讼规则中的法官回避程序适用于刑事案件.参见State ex rel.Rosenthal v.Poe,98 S.W.3d 194,198 (Tex.Cr.App.2003).如果De Leon能够证明被回避的行为是纯粹“部长级的”并且 De Leon 无法获得适当的法律补偿,法庭将授予救济命令书.
上诉法院称,被申请人因而主张他并没有责任来撤换自己或者将该撤换动议交由另一位法官决定.被申请人辩称,他并不出席“初步证明回避案件”的程序.见 Chavez,at 112-13; see also McClenan v.State,661 S.W.2d 108,110 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) （为了使规则第18条a款可适用,动议必须有初步证据并且对于寻求的回避有适当的理由）.刑事案件中的法律发展为“刑事审判的法官对于回避的动议是否符合规则第18条a款,可以做出初步决定”即便“民事案件”的判例法“与其截然不同”.
手打翻译,应该没什么问题, 德州民事诉讼规则中的法官回避程序适用于刑事案件.参见State ex rel.Rosenthal v.Poe,98 S.W.3d 194,198 (Tex.Cr.App.2003).如果De Leon能够证明被回避的行为是纯粹“部长级的”并且 De Leon 无法获得适当的法律补偿,法庭将授予救济命令书.
上诉法院称,被申请人因而主张他并没有责任来撤换自己或者将该撤换动议交由另一位法官决定.被申请人辩称,他并不出席“初步证明回避案件”的程序.见 Chavez,at 112-13; see also McClenan v.State,661 S.W.2d 108,110 (Tex.Cr.App.1983) （为了使规则第18条a款可适用,动议必须有初步证据并且对于寻求的回避有适当的理由）.刑事案件中的法律发展为“刑事审判的法官对于回避的动议是否符合规则第18条a款,可以做出初步决定”即便“民事案件”的判例法“与其截然不同”.
手打翻译,应该没什么问题,