"[e]very procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge . . . not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 .
Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14
As for the Due Process Clause, standard analysis under that provision proceeds in two steps:
We first ask whether there exists a liberty or property interest of which a person has been deprived, and if so we ask whether the procedures followed were constitutionally sufficient. Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490
U. S. 454, 460 (1989).
"The Constitution 'guarantees' due process, not judicial process." ~Attorney General of the U.S., Eric Holder, 03.05.2012
"Few things are as dangerous to American liberty as the proposition that the government should be able to kill citizens anywhere in the world on the basis of legal standards and evidence that are never submitted to a court, either before or after the fact," ~Hina Shamsi, American Civil Liberties Union.
Matz, A Howard reference * Short Description * United States federal judge. The "Bonsai Tree" Hanging Judge.
Comment * A. Howard Matz (born 1943) is an American lawyer and judge. He has sat on the United States District Court for the Central District of California since 1998.
Label * Howard Matz
Category: Judges of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Category: United States district court judges appointed by Bill Clinton
Category: 1943 births * Category: Living people
Given name Alvin Howard
Name * A. Howard Matz, A Howard Matz
Matz, A. Howard
Born 1943 in Brooklyn, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. District Court, Central District of California
Nominated by William J. Clinton on October 20, 1997, to a seat vacated by Harry L. Hupp; Confirmed by the Senate on June 26, 1998, and received commission on June 29, 1998.
Entrapment by estoppel is the "unintentional entrapment
by an official who mistakenly misleads a person into a
violation of the law," and it is a theory derived from the due
process clause. United States v. Batterjee, 361 F.3d 1210,
1216 (9th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Thus, the Constitution does not guarantee
that a criminal defendant be present at all stages of the trial but
rather only at “critical stage[s].” La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d
702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 2001).
Rule 43(b)(3), Fed. R. Crim. P., provides in part that a
defendant need not be present where the “proceeding involves only
a conference or hearing on a question of law.”Like the Fifth Amendment due process
clause and the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.
In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being executed, which would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.
Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral judge.
The Supremes formulated a balancing test to determine the rigor with which the requirements of procedural due process should be applied to a particular deprivation, for the obvious reason that mandating such requirements in the most expansive way for even the most minor deprivations would bring the machinery of government to a halt. The Court set out the test as follows: "[I]dentification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: first, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and, finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail."
Procedural due process has also been an important factor in the development of the law of personal jurisdiction, in the sense that it is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery of a state to take away the property of a person who has no connection to it whatsoever. A significant portion of U.S. constitutional law is therefore directed to what kinds of connections to a state are enough for that state's assertion of jurisdiction over a nonresident to comport with procedural due process.
The requirement of a neutral judge has introduced a constitutional dimension into the question of whether a judge should recuse himself or herself from a case. Specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that in certain circumstances, the Due Process Clause requires a judge to recuse himself on account of a potential or actual conflict of interest. For example, on June 8, 2009, in Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co. (2009), the Court ruled that a justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia could not participate in a case involving a major donor to his election to that court.[30
Contemptible police tactics - Cops raid the home of a licensed medical marijuana provider in Washington, handcuff the fourteen year old son and put a gun to his head, and search the nineteen year old daughter and take the contents of her mickey-mouse wallet.
How To Survive Traffic Stops in America, Submit, Instantly! - What the cops want is immediate obedience and submission. Many cops are ex-military and view the civilian motorists of America about like they viewed the hapless peasants of Iraq and Afghanistan, that is, with contempt, not as fellow citizens deserving of civility and respect. It is a possibly lethal mistake to do anything other than submit, instantly and obey! Or be ready to shoot first. But aim high.