Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2024–2025 · …a trial judge's rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias. at p. 1054 ✓
28 citation events (28 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thomas v. Collins (del, 2025-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Thomas v. Collins
Del. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a trial judge's rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Matter of Fatir
Del. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
when this court's original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is invoked, the burden is upon the petitioner to demonstrate a clear entitlement to that relief.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Butler v. Thomas
Del. · 2024 · confidence medium
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is inapplicable—it applies to a defendant’s right to counsel in a criminal prosecution.15 A PFA hearing is a civil proceeding, and there is no constitutional 12 Opening Br. at 2. 13 In re Whittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 14 Del.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sullivan v. Yanez
Del. · 2024 · confidence medium
But “a trial judge’s rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias.”15 14 Indeed, the Court finds such a bright-line assumption untenable, given the frequency with which a law clerk goes on to practice before the court for which he clerked as well as the professional nature of the law clerk/judge relationship. 15 In re Whittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 6 (9) As a final matter, after Father filed his reply brief in this appeal, he continued to submit various documents to the Court.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fatir v. Board of Pardons
Del. Super. Ct. · 2020 · confidence medium
IV. § 7 (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused hath a right to be heard by himself or herself and his or her counsel, to be plainly and fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him or her, to meet the witnesses in their examination face to face, to have compulsory process in due time, on application by himself or herself, his or her friends or counsel, for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor, and a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; he or she shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself or herself, nor shall he or she be deprived of lif…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Williams v. State
Del. · 2020 · confidence medium
We also are satisfied that Counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 26 Guinn v. State, 841 A.2d 1239, 1241 (Del. 2004). 27 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 14 the record and the law and has properly determined that Williams could not raise a meritorious claim in this appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Chrichlow
Del. · 2019 · confidence medium
Chrichlow has not shown that the Superior Court arbitrarily failed or refused to 3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 4 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 3 perform a duty owed to him, or that he was without an adequate remedy to address the claim he raises in his mandamus petition.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Layton v. Layton and Howard
Del. · 2019 · confidence medium
May 25, 2010). 17 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 18 Gattis, 955 A.2d at 1282 (quotations and emphasis omitted). 7 guardianship and awarded custody to Father.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Montgomery
Del. · 2018 · confidence medium
Sept. 4, 2018) (citing In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994)). 5 Montgomery v. State, 2018 WL 5291244 (Del.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Wisher
Del. · 2018 · confidence medium
ID No. 1709004017. 3 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 2018, Wisher is not entitled to compel the Superior Court to consider a suppression motion in a case he decided not to take to trial.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Cannon
Del. · 2018 · confidence medium
Cannon filed a motion in the Superior Court seeking to have himself removed from the sex offender registry, but he failed to pursue the motion by failing to appear for 1 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 2 the scheduled hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Trammell
Del. · 2017 · confidence medium
Jan. 22, 2016) (citing In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 1994)). 6 Id. (citing In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988)). 7 Id. (citing In re Wl`ttrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994)). 2 (5) Trammell claims an interest in the Property for two reasons.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Debra and William Bennett
Del. · 2017 · confidence medium
The Bennetts then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus. (6) This Court has authority to issue a writ of mandamus when the petitioner can demonstrate a clear right to the performance of a duty, no other adequate remedy is available, and the trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to perform its duty.3 When invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary relief, the burden is upon the petitioner to establish clear entitlement to that relief and that no other adequate remedy is available.4 3 In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 4 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Bradley
Del. · 2017 · confidence medium
Second, even if the judge believes that he has no bias, situations may arise where, actual bias aside, there is the appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt as to the judge's impartiality.”). 4 See, e.g., Gattis v. State, 955 A.2d 1276, 1286 (Del. 2008) (“Judicial rulings alone…are insufficient bases for recusal.”); In re Witrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994) (recognizing a “judge’s rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias). 2 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to recuse or disqualify is DENIED and the p…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Philip R. Shawe
Del. · 2016 · confidence medium
When invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary relief, the burden is upon the petitioner to establish clear entitlement to that relief and that no other adequate remedy is available.4 ' In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988). 2 In re Hyson, 649 A.2d 807, 808 (Del. 1994). 3 In re Hovey, 545 A.2d 626, 628 (Del. 1988). 4 In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). -2- (4) Shawe has failed to carry his burden in this case.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Philip R. Shawe
Del. · 2016 · confidence medium
Elizabeth Elting, the opposing party in the Court of Chancery’s consolidated proceedings, has filed a response requesting that Shawe’s petition be dismissed or denied. (2) A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary form of relief that this Court may issue to compel a trial court to perform a duty if the petitioner can demonstrate that: (i) the petitioner has a clear right to the performance of the duty; (ii) no other adequate remedy is available; and (iii) the trial court arbitrarily failed or refused to perform the duty it owes to the petitioner.I A writ of prohibition, on the other hand, is…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of McLeod
Del. · 2015 · confidence medium
June 25, 2014). 3 Id. at n.4. 4 In re Witrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 3 the petitioner to demonstrate a clear entitlement to that relief.”5 A writ of prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal and will be denied if the petitioner has an adequate and complete remedy at law.6 (7) Steven McLeod has not demonstrated clear entitlement to a writ of prohibition.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Johnson
Del. · 2015 · confidence medium
We warn Johnson that if he continues to file frivolous claims in this Court, he will be enjoined from filing future claims without leave of the Court. 1 In re Witrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). 2 Id. 3 See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 2014 WL 5448891 , at *1 (Del.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Noble
Del. · 2015 · confidence medium
June 25, 2014) (quoting In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994)). 7 By order dated July 21, 2014, a copy of which is attached to the State’s answer and motion to dismiss, the Judge denied Noble’s motion to recuse, which was based on claims that the Judge was biased and had a conflict of interest. 8 Shoemaker v. State, 375 A.2d 431, 437 (Del. 1977). 3 that Court.9 The Court noted that “When reviewing Noble’s complaint history, a pattern becomes clear.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State of Delaware v. Wright.
Del. Super. Ct. · 2014 · confidence medium
In fact, a trial judge's rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias. 54 This principle has often been repeated been repeated in one form or another in the Delaware courts. 55 It is also widely accepted elsewhere, and is seen as a prophylaxis against judge shopping: The traditional judicial view is that if a judge can be disqualified for bias following a comment or 54 In re of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1053 (Del. 1994) (internal citations omitted). 55 Flowers v. State, 53 A.3d 301 (Del. 2012) (TABLE) (“The fact that a judge has made ru…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Haskins v. Kay
Del. · 2008 · confidence medium
Ct. R. 8 (2008). [6] In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994). [7] Id. [8] See Evans v. State, 2005 WL 5118396 (Del.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Henry v. State
Del. · 2008 · confidence medium
Supr.) [8] In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del. 1994) (quoting Los v. Los, 595 A.2d 381, 384 (Del. 1991)).
cited Cited "see" Gattis v. State
Del. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Petition of Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053, 1054 (Del.1994) ("[A] trial judge’s rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias.”). 44 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Greenspan v. News Corporation
Del. Ch. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re Wittrock, 649 A.2d 1053 (Del. 1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of the Petition of Joseph A. WITTROCK for a Writ of Prohibition
401, 1994.
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Nov 21, 1994.
649 A.2d 1053
1994 Del. LEXIS 369
1994 WL 659369
Joseph A. Wittroek, pro se., Richard E. Fairbanks, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for respondent.
Veasey, Holland, Berger.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
HOLLAND, Justice:

In March 1992, a Superior Court jury convicted the petitioner, Joseph A. Wittroek (‘Wittroek”), of numerous sexual offenses. This Court affirmed Wittrock’s convictions on direct appeal. On September 30, 1994, Wittroek filed his first motion for postconvic[*1054] tion relief in the Superior Court. Super.Ct.Crim.R. 61. That motion was assigned for disposition to the judge who had presided over Wittroek’s trial. Wittrock did not request the trial judge to recuse himself from considering Wittrock’s posteonviction motion.

Wittrock has applied to this Court for a writ of prohibition. As grounds for the petition, Wittrock contends that the trial judge exhibited bias and prejudice at his trial. Thus, he seeks to prevent the trial judge from ruling on his postconviction motion.

According to Wittrock, the trial judge erred by failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte, after becoming aware that Wittroek’s attorney had an alleged material conflict of interest. Wittrock has raised that alleged error as one ground for relief in his postcon-viction motion. Wittrock contends that the trial judge’s failure to declare a mistrial exhibits bias and demonstrates an inability to rule impartially on Wittrock’s postconviction motion. The State has filed a motion to dismiss Wittrock’s petition for a writ of prohibition.

Every litigant is entitled to be heard by a disinterested judge. Matushefske v. Herlihy, Del.Supr., 214 A.2d 883, 886 (1965). This Court, therefore, has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of prohibition not only to prevent a lower court from exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction, but to restrain an individual judge from proceeding in a case in which the judge is clearly disqualified by reason of personal interest, bias or prejudice. Supr.Ct.R. 43; In re Hovey, Del.Supr., 545 A.2d 626, 628 (1988); Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d at 886. When this Court’s original jurisdiction to issue an extraordinary writ is invoked, the burden is upon the petitioner to demonstrate a clear entitlement to that relief. In re Hovey, 545 A.2d at 629.

Canon 3C(1) of The Delaware Judges’ Code of Judicial Conduct states, in part, that disqualification due to personal bias or prejudice is required when the impartiality of the judge might reasonably be questioned. Del. Judges’ Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3C(1) (1993). Previous contact between the judge and a party, in the same or a different judicial proceeding, does not require automatic disqualification. Los v. Los, Del.Supr., 595 A.2d 381, 384 (1991). Furthermore, this Court previously has held that the bias envisioned by Canon 3C(l)(a) is not created merely because the trial judge has made adverse rulings during the course of a prior proceeding. Weber v. State, Del.Supr., 547 A.2d 948, 952 (1988). In fact, a trial judge’s rulings alone almost never constitute a valid per se basis for disqualification on the ground of bias. Liteky v. United States, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 1157, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

Wittroek’s only alleged evidence of bias arises from the trial judge’s failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte. Wittrock’s allegation, without more, does not constitute clear and convincing evidence that the trial judge is disqualified from ruling on his postconviction motion on the basis of bias. See Weber v. State, 547 A.2d at 952. Consequently, Wittrock has not established his entitlement to the issuance of a writ of prohibition. In re Hovey, 545 A.2d at 629.

Alternatively, a writ of prohibition, a form of extraordinary remedy, will not be issued if the petitioner has an adequate and complete remedy at law to correct an allegedly erroneous act of the lower court. Matushefske v. Herlihy, 214 A.2d at 886; In re Hovey, 545 A.2d at 628. Pursuant to Superi- or Court Criminal Rule 61(k), Wittrock has the right to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court if his postconviction motion is unsuccessful on the merits. On appeal, Wit-trock may seek this Court’s review of all claims, including his claim that the trial judge was disqualified on the basis of bias or prejudice. Therefore, a writ of prohibition is inappropriate because Wittrock has an adequate and complete remedy at law. See In re Hovey, 545 A.2d at 629.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Wittrock’s petition for a writ of prohibition is DENIED.