The defendant told me the judge would dismiss my testimony. I’m the judge hearing this case.

“You know that’s not a valid reason to refuse recusal. Your personal feelings about justice don’t override the code of conduct.”

“What if my personal knowledge makes me uniquely qualified to evaluate the evidence? I’ve seen how Krauss operates. I know he’s lying about addressing the maintenance issues. I know he intimidates tenants. Another judge would only see the paperwork and professional presentation.”

Katherine shook her head.

“You’re rationalizing. If you stay on this case and rule against the property company they will appeal. They’ll argue bias. They might win. Then these tenants would have to go through the whole process again. Is that the outcome you want?”

I hadn’t thought about that possibility clearly enough. An appeal based on judicial bias could indeed overturn any ruling I made.

The tenants would be worse off than if I’d recused from the start. But if I recuse now whoever gets the case might rule against the tenants anyway.

At least with me they have a chance.

“Michael you’re not thinking clearly about this. Your emotions are overriding your judgment. That’s exactly why judges recuse themselves. You need to step back and let someone else handle it.”

She was right; I knew she was right. But I also knew what would likely happen if I did.

“What if I disclose everything and let both parties make informed decisions? I offered Whitmore the chance to request recusal and he took it. If I grant the motion I’m making the decision for them. If I deny it both parties know the situation and can decide if they want to appeal later.”

Katherine considered this.

“That’s ethically defensible but risky. You’d be making yourself the issue in the case.”

“I’m already the issue. Krauss made sure of that the moment he told me judges would dismiss tenant testimony. He thought he understood how the system worked; maybe it’s time to show him he was wrong.”

Cross-Examining the Manager

I returned to court at 1:00 p.m. and everyone was already seated. I noticed my mother sitting in the gallery now.

She must have come during the lunch break. When she saw me on the bench her face registered shock.

She’d known I was a judge but had never actually seen me in court before. I avoided looking directly at her.

“We’ll continue with witness testimony. Ms. Cho call your next witness.”

Jennifer stood.

“The tenants call Victor Krauss.”

That was a bold move: calling the opposing party as a hostile witness. Alan objected immediately.

“Your honor Mr. Krauss is not on the witness list.”

“He’s listed as a party representative. Miss Cho has the right to call him.”

“Objection overruled. Mr. Krauss please take the stand.”

I watched Krauss walk to the witness stand. He was sworn in and sat down, his eyes never leaving my face.

Jennifer started with basic questions: how long had he been property manager and what were his responsibilities? Krauss answered in short careful sentences.

He’d been property manager for 8 years and oversaw maintenance, rent collection and tenant relations. Then Jennifer shifted.

“Mr. Krauss how many complaints have you received about the heating system this winter?”

Krauss paused.

“I’d have to check my records.”

“You don’t remember generally?”

“We receive many complaints. I can’t remember specific numbers.”

“More than 10? Possibly more than 20?”

“I’d need to check my records.”

Jennifer pulled out a document.

“I have here a log of complaint calls to your office obtained through discovery. It shows 43 separate calls about heating issues between December and February. Does that refresh your memory?”

Krauss’s jaw tightened.

“If that’s what the log shows.”

“Were all those complaints addressed promptly?”

“We addressed them as quickly as possible given the age of the building and availability of parts.”

“The heating system hasn’t been fully functional for 3 months; is that correct?”

“We’ve been working on repairs.”

“Yes or no Mr. Krauss: has the heating system been fully functional at any point in the past 3 months?”

“No.”

“Are you aware that city housing code requires landlords to maintain indoor temperatures of at least 68 degrees?”

“Yes.”

“Are you aware that temperature readings taken in multiple apartments show temperatures below 50 degrees?”

“I haven’t personally verified those readings.”

Jennifer was doing well; she was methodically establishing that Krauss knew about the problems and hadn’t fixed them. Then she moved to something more dangerous.

“Mr. Krauss did you have a conversation with a family member of one of the tenants on February 10th?”

Krauss glanced at me then at Allen.

“I speak with many people.”

“Specifically did you speak with the son of tenant Helen Davidson on February 10th?”

Another glance at me; Krauss knew where this was going.

“I believe so.”

“And during that conversation did you tell him that judges in housing court always side with property owners?”

Alan stood immediately.

“Objection your honor this is irrelevant to the habitability issues.”

I looked at Alan.

“The question goes to Mr. Krauss’s state of mind and understanding of his obligations. I’ll allow it. Mr. Krauss please answer the question.”

Krauss shifted in his seat.

“I may have made comments about how housing court generally works.”

“Specifically did you say that judges dismiss tenant testimony and side with property managers who have documentation?”

Silence. Krauss was trapped.

If he said no he was lying under oath; if he said yes he was admitting he’d been confident enough in the court systems bias that he could ignore complaints.

“I may have said something to that effect.”

“And did you say this because you’ve been to housing court many times before?”

“Yes.”

“How many times?”