Horton v. USA

Filing 12

ORDER finding as moot 3 Motion for Recusal.. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 6/7/2017. (kmb2)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
CHRISTOPHER M. HORTON,
Petitioner,
v.

No. 3:17-cv-00023-DRH

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ORDER
HERNDON, District Judge:
Before the Court is petitioner Christopher Horton’s (“Horton”) motion for
Recusal of the Undersigned Judge (Doc. 3). Horton—pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
144—requests recusal of the undersigned in an attempt to satisfy the ineffective
assistance of counsel analysis under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668
(1984) (Id.). Specifically, Horton intends to call the undersigned as a witness to
testify whether an expert’s testimony would have swayed the Court to render a
lesser sentence (Id.).
However, Horton’s motion is deemed MOOT because he cannot call the
undersigned as a witness because there will be no hearing. And if there was to be
a hearing, the motion for recusal would be denied in any event, as calling the
undersigned as a witness would be inappropriate under any circumstances.
As noted by the Seventh Circuit in its opinion affirming this Court’s
judgment in Horton’s criminal appeal, see United States v. Horton, 770 F.3d 582
(7th Cir. 2014), at sentencing this Court gave less weight to Horton’s background

and greater weight to the need for punishment and the danger that Horton posed
to society. The expert witness presented by the defense is a noted expert in the
field and is called upon often to testify in court including this Federal Courthouse
and his retention and presentation in this case can certainly not be called
ineffective representation.
Accordingly, Horton’s Motion for Recusal of the Undersigned Judge is
deemed MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 7th day of June, 2017.

Digitally signed by
Judge David R.
Herndon
Date: 2017.06.07
14:32:17 -05'00'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE