Am. Cyanamid Co. v. FTC - 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1966)

Rule:

A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered. Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.

Facts:

Petitioners manufactured the antibiotic drug tetracycline. Respondent brought actions against petitioners alleging violation of § 5 of Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 45(a)(1). According to the respondent, petitioners made misleading and incorrect statements to and withheld information from the patent office to obtain a patent on tetracycline. A hearing examiner found in favor of petitioners and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the commission reversed the hearing examiner's holding by finding that petitioners created a monopoly to manufacture and sell tetracycline. Petitioners appealed claiming judicial bias because the chairman played in active role in investigating many of the same facts, issues, and parties involved in the matter while it was being investigated by a United States Senate Subcommittee on antitrust and monopoly.

Issue:

Was there a merit in petitioners’ allegation of judicial bias in the instant case?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court noted that a fair trial in a fair tribunal was a basic requirement of due process. Fairness required an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. Wherever there may be reasonable suspicion of unfairness, the court held that the best recourse was to disqualify. Thus, in this case, the court vacated the commission adjudication and remanded for a de novo hearing on all issues without the chairman's participation because of possible bias. The court further noted that many of the commission’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence.