I think you're missing the point. Judge Cunningham can be antisemite or racist, and he even may have born a personal disdain for the defendant for such reasons. BUT - and this is a big but - Halprin needed to prove that Judge Cunningham biases influenced his performance at trial in a way that factually penalized the defendant, and prevented him from receiving a fair trial. It's something deeply different.
Now, I remember that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Halprin had the burden to factually prove not only that Judge Cunningham was antisemite, not only that Judge Cunningham didn't like him for being a Jew, but that Judge Cunningham's concrete actions during his trial irreparably ruined his chances of receiving a fair sentence for his crimes. And Halprin couldn't prove such a fact in the slightest. This was what Halprin needed to prove, only this, and couldn't.
This case is not that different from Alan Miller's. He may very well have chosen nitrogen hypoxia in 2018, but couldn't prove it. The burden of proof was his, and his only.
Bookmarks