A few weeks ago the news broke: the public prosecutor's office applied to have the presiding judge recused in the Mannheim trial of the alleged right-wing terrorist group "S". In the public debate, this kind of step is usually read as a dramatic development, perhaps even a sensation. In reality it's a tool that every lawyer has in their toolbox and that, depending on the case, can be the right, even the necessary move.
A recusal motion is not an accusation of corruption. It is based on the simple idea that justice must not only be done — it must also be visible. A judge is biased not only when they actually favour one side, but already whenever, from the outside and from the perspective of the affected party, there is a reasonable doubt about their impartiality.
This is what people tend to forget. In a criminal trial, everything depends on the judge: whether a witness is believed, whether a piece of evidence is ordered, how a statement is weighted, whether mitigating circumstances are accepted. If the person steering all that appears openly committed to a particular outcome, the system has a problem — and so does the defendant.
This is why defence lawyers and, where appropriate, prosecutors make use of this tool. Not to paralyse proceedings, but to safeguard them. A recusal motion filed on solid grounds is not an attack on the judiciary; it is the judiciary defending itself against the appearance of partiality.
Of course the motion is only granted in rare cases. A judge is not recused because they ask critical questions, take a robust line or rule against one side on procedural issues. The bar is higher: there must be concrete facts that justify distrust. An open declaration of sympathy for one side, a comment on the result before evidence is taken, informal contacts that bypass the other party — these are the classic scenarios.
Anyone who participates in criminal proceedings — whether as defendant, joint plaintiff or witness — should know that this possibility exists. And that it can be used without shame. A court where one side believes itself to be prejudged is not a court in the constitutional sense. That is what a recusal motion is there for. Sometimes filing it is enough to settle the situation; sometimes it leads to a change of panel; sometimes the court reassures itself that it actually can hear the case without bias. All of that is legitimate, and all of it ultimately serves the proceedings themselves.