{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Voices at Temple","provider_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices","title":"When Judges May Not Judge - Voices at Temple","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FxCnegTxbj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/judges-may-not-judge\/\">When Judges May Not Judge<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/judges-may-not-judge\/embed\/#?secret=FxCnegTxbj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;When Judges May Not Judge&#8221; &#8212; Voices at Temple\" data-secret=\"FxCnegTxbj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/moot-court-bench-bw.png","thumbnail_width":840,"thumbnail_height":560,"description":"Perhaps it is not a startling position, but \u201cwhen a judge earlier had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant\u2019s case[,]\u201d that judge must recuse himself or herself from judicial or appellate review. That principal is now enshrined not merely as one of professional conduct, but as a guarantee of Due Process. And this came about in a case with some Temple Law connections. The decision came on June 9 in a 5-3 ruling from the United States Supreme Court in a case from Pennsylvania. In Williams v. Pennsylvania, Terry Williams, a death row inmate, had won a last minute reprieve and the right to a new penalty trial when a Philadelphia Judge determined that \u201cthe trial prosecutor had suppressed material, exculpatory evidence\u2026and engaged in \u2018prosecutorial gamesmanship.\u2019\u201d When the prosecution appealed that ruling the case went to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, presided over by then-Chief Justice Ronald Castille. There was only one problem \u2013 the Chief Justice had been the District Attorney at the time of Williams\u2019 original trial &hellip;"}