Justice for Echandza D. Maxie

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Southern District of Alabama

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, United States of America
v.
Echandza Dianca Maxie,
Defendant.

Case No.: 1:24-cr-00112-TFM-2

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE FOR BIAS AND MOTION FOR RELEASE PENDING TRIAL COMES NOW,

The Defendant, Echandza Dianca Maxie, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for the following relief:

An order recusing both Judge Katherine P.Nelson and Judge Terry F.Moorer from further proceedings in this case due to demonstrated judicial bias in violation of 28 U.S.C. § 455.
An order granting the Defendant's release pending trial, with appropriate conditions, pursuant to the Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3142.
In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Defendant has been detained on the basis of alleged violations of house arrest terms.
The presiding judge, without sufficient factual evidence or proof, has labeled the Defendant a flight risk, disregarding relevant mitigating factors.
This determination was made despite the absence of any substantive evidence or legal justification, suggesting improper bias against the Defendant.

II. LEGAL BASIS FOR MOTION

A. Judicial Bias Violates 28 U.S.C. § 455

28 U.S.C. § 455(a) requires a judge to disqualify themselves “in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Bias may be found where a judge’s statements or rulings indicate prejudgment or hostility toward the defendant. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).
a. In United States v. Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008), the court held that even the appearance of bias undermines the integrity of the judicial process.
b. Statements or rulings lacking evidentiary support may demonstrate prejudice.
By deeming the Defendant a flight risk without factual support, the judge has exceeded judicial discretion and appears biased, thereby failing to uphold their oath to “administer justice without respect to persons” under 28 U.S.C. § 453.

B. Denial of Release Violates the Bail Reform Act

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(b), a defendant shall be released on personal recognizance or an unsecured bond unless the government proves by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant and the safety of the community.
The Defendant acknowledges the alleged violation of house arrest terms but asserts that this does not substantiate a finding of flight risk:
a. The Defendant remains committed to complying with reasonable conditions of release, including GPS monitoring or stricter supervision.
b. There is no evidence of attempts to flee or evade prosecution.
In United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987), the Supreme Court emphasized that pretrial detention must meet due process requirements and not infringe on liberty without sufficient justification.

III. THE JUDGE’S ACTIONS VIOLATE JUDICIAL ETHICS AND DUE PROCESS

The judge’s unfounded characterization of the Defendant as a flight risk disregards the principles of impartiality and the presumption of innocence, violating:
a. Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges: Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
b. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, as articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
The judge’s actions undermine the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, warranting recusal and immediate reconsideration of the Defendant’s release.