In Re Murchison.

Background

A Detroit policeman and another man were called to answer questions before a Michigan judge acting as a one-man grand jury in secret. The judge charged the policeman with perjury and the other witness with contempt for refusing to answer. The same judge then held public trials, convicted both men of contempt, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed those convictions.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether it is fair for the same judge who conducted secret investigative questioning to later preside over a public trial for contempt based on that investigation. The opinion explains that fairness requires not only lack of actual bias but also avoidance of situations that create the appearance of partiality. A judge who investigated the case is likely to rely on his own private recollections and impressions from the secret sessions, which other witnesses cannot test by cross-examination. The Court found that this mix of roles denied the accused an impartial tribunal and therefore violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgments convicting the two men were reversed.

Real world impact

The decision prevents judges who acted as one-person investigating grand juries from later trying contempt charges that grew out of those secret inquiries. It emphasizes that defendants must have an impartial judge and a fair chance to challenge witnesses, including the investigator. The reversal sends the cases back to Michigan for further proceedings consistent with this ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the record showed no actual bias, noted federal practices allowing similar judge-conducted punishments, and would have affirmed the convictions.