Is a motion to disqualify a trial judge an evidentiary proceeding?

Finally, the governmental interest in expeditious resolution of judicial disqualifications is clear. As previously pointed out, the procedures for judicial disqualification are intended only to afford the litigant a fair and impartial trial; they are not intended to be a delaying tactic available to permit litigants to avoid a judicial "day of reckoning." In addition to adding little, if anything, to existing procedural safeguards, an evidentiary hearing on a motion to disqualify a trial judge, by nature an adversarial proceeding, would not only result in increased expenditure of judicial time and resources but would also place the challenged judge in the untenable position of submitting to cross-examination regarding his judicial role, actions and demeanor. Defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial, guaranteed as an element of due process, does not mandate such an intrusive inquiry. In an analogous situation, the courts have upheld the use of affidavits alone as a [156 Cal.App.3d 682] basis on which the trial court can assess alleged juror misconduct in a motion for a new trial and have declined to extend to the defendant any absolute right to subpena jurors and thus compel their testimony in support of the motion. As the court stated in People v. Scott (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 301, 308, 180 Cal.Rptr. 891 to permit such examination "would open the door to harassment of jurors and, ... ultimately damage the jury process and the administration of justice." We believe equally strong policy considerations weigh against jeopardizing the integrity of the judicial process.