Judge Recusal Ruling Stalled for 4 Months, Halt Choi Sang-mok's Trial Too
Special Prosecutor: 'Delayed Recusal Ruling Risks Undermining the Search for Truth'
The first-instance trial of former Deputy Prime Minister Choi Sang-mok has been stalled for eight months over a single judge recusal request. On the 8th, the team of special prosecutor Cho Eun-seok urged the Supreme Court to swiftly rule on the recusal motion in this case. According to Yonhap News, the special prosecutor pointed out that the recusal issue has been pending before the Supreme Court for more than four months, longer than the court's average review period.
Choi, the former deputy prime minister, was indicted on insurrection charges related to the December 3 martial law declaration. When the court separated his hearings due to the recusal request, proceedings against him were effectively suspended. Meanwhile, former Prime Minister Han Duck-soo and the other defendants are set to receive their first-instance verdicts on the 26th, leaving defendants in the same case proceeding at different speeds.
How Judge Recusal Requests Halt Trials
Judge recusal is a procedure through which a party asks that a specific judge be excluded from the proceedings on the grounds that the judge may be unable to conduct a fair trial. Once a recusal request is filed, the judge's proceedings are, in principle, suspended until a ruling is made. The problem is that the power to decide rests with the Supreme Court, and if it does not rule, the first-instance court is powerless to act.
The special prosecutor views this delay as a measure that could devolve from the exercise of a defendant's right of defense into a means of simply stalling the trial itself. Arguing that "the search for truth could be undermined," the special prosecutor highlighted responsibility for the trial delays and demanded a swift ruling from the Supreme Court. The point that the four-month pendency exceeds the Supreme Court's average review period was cited as evidence that a decision is being unusually delayed.
The Equity Controversy Created by the 26th Verdict
The weight of the trial delay becomes clear in the context of the case as a whole. If the first-instance verdict against former Prime Minister Han and others proceeds as scheduled on the 26th, Choi, a key defendant in the same case, will remain the only one untried. The special prosecutor worries that with the court's findings on co-conspirator relationships set to diverge, a gap will emerge in the overall picture of the case.
Legal circles note that while recusal requests are a legitimate procedural right, abuse could amount to a strategic gambit aimed at delaying trial. From the defense's standpoint, however, it is a right to demand a fair tribunal, so views on the timing of a decision inevitably diverge. In this case, though, since a verdict for the remaining defendants in the separated hearings is imminent, the impact of the delay on the overall case schedule has grown larger than before.
The Supreme Court's Ruling as the Turning Point for the Schedule Ahead
The future schedule hinges on whether the Supreme Court grants the recusal. If the request is denied, first-instance proceedings in Choi's case would resume and a new trial calendar would be set. If granted, the tribunal would be replaced and the trial would effectively start over, significantly delaying any verdict.
The special prosecutor's call for a swift ruling is significant in that it squarely raises the issue of trial delays before the courts. If the Supreme Court heeds the request and rules early, Choi's trial could get back on track within the year. If the pendency drags on, however, the case will remain half-finished even after the 26th verdict, with only part of it concluded. The moment is set to test whether the speed of a trial is, in effect, the speed at which the truth is established.
