United States v. John McTiernan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the presiding judge’s negative comments toward the defendant, such as stating that the defendant “is clearly willing to lie whenever it suits his purpose” did not warrant recusal
• holding that the presiding judge’s negative comments toward the defendant, such as stating that the defendant “is clearly willing to lie whenever it suits his purpose” did not warrant recusal
• holding that the presiding judge’s negative comments toward the defendant, such as stating that the defendant “is clearly willing to lie whenever it suits his purpose” did not warrant recusal
• stating that a “judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal”
• setting forth the standard of review and standard for recusal of judges
• “A judge’s prior adverse ruling is not sufficient cause for recusal.” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).