context: A judge's state of mind cannot be explored by a litigant, as can a prospective juror's attitudes at voir dire. Therefore, in applying the former standard of "affirmative showing of prejudice," this court has required an actual statement by the challenged judge demonstrating bias.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 411 N.W.2d 882, 890-91
citation_a.parenthetical: judge's statement that his general impression 12 years before trial was that prosecutors thought defendant was guilty does not establish bias where judge could no longer remember facts of case
citation_a.sentence: See Yeager, 399 N.W.2d at 652 (litigant failed to show prejudice by not demonstrating challenged judge made a derogatory remark); cf. Nachtsheim v. Wartnick, 411 N.W.2d 882, 890-91 (Minn.App.1987) (judge’s statement that his general impression 12 years before trial was that prosecutors thought defendant was guilty does not establish bias where judge could no longer remember facts of case), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1987).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 399 N.W.2d 652, 652
citation_b.parenthetical: litigant failed to show prejudice by not demonstrating challenged judge made a derogatory remark
citation_b.sentence: See Yeager, 399 N.W.2d at 652 (litigant failed to show prejudice by not demonstrating challenged judge made a derogatory remark); cf. Nachtsheim v. Wartnick, 411 N.W.2d 882, 890-91 (Minn.App.1987) (judge’s statement that his general impression 12 years before trial was that prosecutors thought defendant was guilty does not establish bias where judge could no longer remember facts of case), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 28, 1987).