Judges facing prosecutor investigations
Michael Damon Rippo v. Baker
In brief
The Supreme Court wiped out Nevada’s ruling and sent Rippo’s case back, leaving the bias question and his request for relief unresolved.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · March 6, 2017 · Per curiam
- What it’s about
- Michael Rippo argued that his Nevada trial judge should have stepped aside because the district attorney’s office prosecuting him was also investigating the judge over bribery allegations.
- Who it affects
- The Nevada Supreme Court’s judgment was wiped out, but whether the judge was biased or Rippo is entitled to relief remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court wiped out the Nevada judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded it), without deciding whether the judge was biased or whether Rippo was entitled to relief.
Rippo based his challenge on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due-process protection.
Question presented
Did a trial judge violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when he failed to recuse himself from a criminal case where the district attorney’s office prosecuting the case was simultaneously investigating him on allegations of bribery?
What the Court decided
Holding
As a result, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and we vacate the judgment below and remand the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
- Majority author
- Per Curiam
What's next
The case was sent back for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion.
Documents
Opinions
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Rippo
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.