Facts
A. was convicted by the single judge at the District Court of Zurich for multiple offenses against the Narcotics Act. He appealed against the judgment. At the beginning of the appeal hearing before the 1st Criminal Chamber of the High Court of the Canton of Zurich, A. filed a request for recusal against Presiding Judge Rolf Naef due to bias. The background was that Presiding Judge Naef, as the reporting judge in the appeal case, had contacted the defendant's legal representative and informed him that he would likely file a motion to dismiss the appeal based on the case files. The 2nd Criminal Chamber of the High Court dismissed the request for recusal. A. appealed against this decision to the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
According to the case law of the Federal Supreme Court, every person has the right to have their criminal case judged by an impartial, unbiased, and neutral judge. The appearance of bias can be created by various circumstances and conditions, particularly by statements of a judge that allow the conclusion that he has already formed a firm opinion on the outcome of the proceedings.
The appeal proceedings before the High Court are based on the so-called reporting judge system, in which a judge of the chamber responsible for the decision is designated as the reporting judge. The preliminary opinion formation of the reporting judge represents a stage in the process of finding the facts and does not in itself express any bias.
In the present case, however, the reporting…