California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Martin v. Superior Court of Contra Costa Cnty., A141620 (Cal. App. 2014):
"Section 170.6 guarantees 'to litigants an extraordinary right to disqualify a judge. The right is "automatic" in the sense that a good faith belief in prejudice is alone sufficient, proof of facts showing actual prejudice not being required. [Citations.]' [Citations.] The object of this section is to provide the party and attorney with a substitution of judge to safeguard the right to a fair trial or hearing. [Citation.] This section is intended to ensure confidence in the judiciary and avoid the suspicion which might arise from the belief of a litigant that the judge is biased where such belief is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. [Citation.] The section is liberally construed and the trend is to grant relief unless absolutely forbidden by statute. [Citations.]" (People v. Superior Court (Maloy) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 391, 394-395, original italics & italics added.) In light of this liberal construction principle, the February 28 challenge is reasonably read both in its caption and in its body, as both a challenge for cause under section 170.1 and a timely peremptory challenge under section 170.6.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.