Motion to Recuse Judge — United States v. Henson (Dkt. 142, D. Md.)

Summary

Nichelle Henson, representing herself, moved on 06/17/24 to recuse Judge Matthew Maddox in United States v. Henson (D. Md., Criminal No. MJM-21-470). The motion cites the April 22, 2024 hearing on Henson's motion to dismiss the indictment, where Henson argued that the government obtained business loan applications without a search warrant. It lists transcript pages where the judge is said to have confused suspicion with probable cause, dismissed Henson's reading of the Carpenter case, and denied a trial postponement. It asks that the case be reassigned under 28 U.S.C. § 144 and attaches Henson's sworn affidavit.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM   Document 142   Filed 06/17/24   Page 1 of 6
Rev'd by:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
V. * Criminal No. MJM-21-470
NICHELLE HENSON *

Oe ed

MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE

COMES NOW, the Defendant, Nichelle Henson, by and through her own pro se
representation, and respectfully moves this Court to recuse Judge Matthew Maddox from

presiding over this case.

Introduction

This Motion to Recuse Judge Matthew Maddox is based on the Defendant's well-founded
fear of bias that has demonstrated a predisposition to favor the Government's position in this case
and against the Defendant's ability to receive a fair trial. The Judge's statements and actions
throughout the hearing create a reasonable appearance of bias and undermines the Defendant's
right to a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The Judge's conduct during the April 22nd, 2024 hearing on the Defendant's

Motion to Dismiss raises serious concerns about his impartiality.
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM   Document 142   Filed 06/17/24   Page 2 of 6
Factual Background

On April 22, 2024, a hearing was held on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the
Indictment. During the hearing, the Defendant argued that the Government violated her Fourth
Amendment rights by obtaining her business loan applications without a search warrant. The
Defendant further argued that the investigation launched based on the suspicion of a bank,
without probable cause, amounted to prosecutorial misconduct. These arguments were supported
by citations to relevant legal authorities, including the Justice Manual and Supreme Court case

law.

Evidence of Bias

A review of the hearing transcripts reveals a concerning pattern of statements by Judge
Matthew Maddox that demonstrate bias against the Defendant and a misunderstanding of the

law.

Specific examples include:

Questioning the Legality of Search Warrant Requirement:

Page 17: The Judge questioned the Defendant's assertion of the Government's need for

reasonable suspicion, implying a lower standard was sufficient.

Page 18: The Defendant explained the need for probable cause for a search warrant, yet the

Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss.
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM   Document 142   Filed 06/17/24   Page 3 of 6
Page 19: The Judge expressed confusion about the facts underlying the case, suggesting a lack of
thorough review. The Judge exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the Fourth Amendment,

confusing "suspicion" with "probable cause" for investigation.

Mischaracterization of Legal Precedent:

Page 21: The Judge disregarded the Defendant's interpretation of the Carpenter case and
questioned her reasonable expectation of privacy. The Judge dismisses the Defendant's

interpretation of relevant case law without proper consideration.

Diminishing the Importance of Procedural Fairness:

Page 50: The Judge downplayed the importance of the investigation's legality, focusing on the
upcoming trial instead of potential prejudice. The Judge trivializes the Defendant's concerns

about the investigation's legality, stating it's irrelevant to her guilt or innocence.

Page 51: Despite the Defendant's arguments, the Judge claimed he was not convinced the
information was obtained illegally. The Judge disregards the Defendant's argument concerning

the illegality of evidence obtained.

Denial of Motion to Dismiss and Request for Continuance:

Page 73-74: The Judge denied the Defendant's request for a trial postponement, citing a lengthy

case pendency despite the Defendant's pro se status and limited preparation time.

These statements, combined with the Judge's ultimate denial of the Motion to Dismiss,

create a strong impression that the Judge is predisposed to favor the Government and overlooks
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM   Document 142   Filed 06/17/24   Page 4 of 6
the Defendant's legal arguments. These examples, along with the complete transcript attached as
evidence, demonstrate a clear pattern of bias against the Defendant and her legal arguments. The
Judge's misunderstanding of the law, coupled with his dismissive attitude towards the

Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, create a situation where a fair trial is impossible.

Legal Argument

A fair and impartial judge is essential to a just legal system. Due process requires that a
judge recuse himself or herself when a reasonable person might question the judge's impartiality.
The evidence presented above demonstrates a clear basis for such a belief in this case. A judge
must recuse himself or herself from a case when a reasonable person, knowing all the
circumstances, would harbor doubts about the judge's impartiality. 28 U.S.C. § 144. The

appearance of bias is just as important as actual bias.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that Judge Matthew
Maddox recuse himself from presiding over this case. The Defendant is confident that another

judge, free from any appearance of bias, can ensure a fair and just trial.
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM   Document 142   Filed 06/17/24   Page 5 of 6
Relief Requested

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Grant this Motion to Recuse and disqualify Judge Matthew Maddox from presiding over
this case.

2. Assign this case to a new and impartial judge.

Respectfully submitted,
Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM   Document 142   Filed 06/17/24   Page 6 of 6
Affidavit and Certificate to certify

I, Nichelle Henson, hereby state under oath and hereby swear under penalty of perjury, depose

and state as follows:

1. Iam the Defendant in the above-entitled action.

2. That the foregoing Motion to Recuse Judge Matthew Maddox is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

3. Furthermore, I state that this Motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.

4. I fear that I will not receive a fair trial if Judge Matthew Maddox continues to preside

over this case.

Nichelle Henson

Sworn to and subscribed before me this /.2¢4day of Ju ne, 2024.

Notary Public Signature: Dui FE Momowr

Pe
Notary Public Printed Name: ! € (@ L [ Lf man

My Commission Expires: Joly / 3 20 Qu


File and source

File

142-48068a76.pdf

Size

1,682,170 bytes

SHA-256

48068a7634b822df21d899ca3a58f34c8a43265f9777a01e3c2310ef079158b9

Our copy

142-48068a76.pdf