lukpac wrote:How would you even know if you came to "the exact correct conclusion" or if there was bias or deceit if the records aren't public?
Trust me. I just know.
gargantua wrote:I'm trying to wrap my mind around the idea of recusal due to witnessing what actually occurred. It never occurred to me that hearing someone else's version of an event was better than witnessing it.
Sec. 757.19(2)(b) provides that "[a]ny judge shall disqualify himself or herself from any civil or criminal action or proceeding when one of the following situations occurs: . . . [w]hen a judge is a party or a material witness." The Judicial Code contains a similar provision. This seems to make it quite clear that only Justice Patrick Crooks can sit on this case and that means that the Court can't act. Wisconsin Constitution Art VII sec. 4(1) provides that "[a]ny 4 justices shall constitute a quorum for the conduct of the court's business." (via Blaska)