context: Such rank speculation about a judge's possibly improper motives is clearly insufficient to implicate Murchison's prophylactic rule.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 620 F.2d 912, 919
citation_a.parenthetical: "we think the mere fact that a judge entertains a motion for new trial in a case over which he presided initially does not reasonably call'into question his impartiality ... it may be advantageous ... because of [the original judge's] familiarity with earlier proceedings"
citation_a.sentence: United States v. Smith, 337 F.2d 49, 51 (4th Cir.1964) (holding that consistent with Due Process a judge presiding over a reconstruction hearing may use his own recollection of the initial plea in reaching his decision if there has been no showing of bias); cf. United States v. Martorano, 620 F.2d 912, 919 (1st Cir.1980) (“we think the mere fact that a judge entertains a motion for new trial in a case over which he presided initially does not reasonably call'into question his impartiality ... it may be advantageous ... because of [the original judge’s] familiarity with earlier proceedings”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 337 F.2d 49, 51
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that consistent with Due Process a judge presiding over a reconstruction hearing may use his own recollection of the initial plea in reaching his decision if there has been no showing of bias
citation_b.sentence: United States v. Smith, 337 F.2d 49, 51 (4th Cir.1964) (holding that consistent with Due Process a judge presiding over a reconstruction hearing may use his own recollection of the initial plea in reaching his decision if there has been no showing of bias); cf. United States v. Martorano, 620 F.2d 912, 919 (1st Cir.1980) (“we think the mere fact that a judge entertains a motion for new trial in a case over which he presided initially does not reasonably call'into question his impartiality ... it may be advantageous ... because of [the original judge’s] familiarity with earlier proceedings”).