Facts
X. was found guilty by the District Court of Zurich of several offenses against property and sentenced to a suspended custodial sentence. He appealed against this judgment to the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. The presiding judge of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the High Court, Vice President Peter Marti, then contacted the defense counsel of X. and asked him to seriously discuss with his client the withdrawal of the appeal due to poor prospects of success.
X. then filed a motion that the presiding judge as well as all members of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the High Court should be recused from the appeal proceedings due to the appearance of bias. The High Court granted the recusal of High Court Judge Marti, but dismissed the request for rejection against the other members and substitute members of the 1st Criminal Chamber.
X. then filed a criminal complaint with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that all members of the 1st Criminal Chamber of the High Court be recused due to bias or the appearance of bias.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, insofar as it was admissible. It found that the conduct of the presiding judge Marti created the appearance of bias and he was therefore rightly recused.
However, with regard to the other members and substitute members of the 1st Criminal Chamber, the Federal Supreme Court saw no indications of the appearance of bias. The complainant's presumption that the conduct of High Court Judge Marti had been coordinated with the other chamber members was considered not further substantiated.
However, the Federal Supreme Court emphasized that…