SUSPICION. - Suspicio, s., suspicion generally indicate a doubt or a judgment not fully proven, but founded on serious indications, regarding some fact. In the CIC it is used in penal matters, especially for suspicion of heresy (v.) in certain cases (can. 2315 ff., 2319 ff., 2332, 2340, 2371); the "suspect" person, once admonished, must "purge" the suspicion by removing its grounds, in order to avoid incurring the penalties inflicted on formal heretics.
Of greater current relevance is the subject in the judicial sphere. The dignity of the judge — a public person —, the requirements of the greatest objectivity and independence in administering justice, so that the parties to the case accept the verdict without calling its substance into question, require that persons burdened by objective and well-founded doubts of partiality of judgment take no part in the trial; where such doubts exist, there is legitimate suspicion.
The judge cannot refuse his office to one who requests it; and by refusing, he is liable for damages (CIC, cann. 1608, 1625; Italian Code of Civil Procedure, art. 55). But in case of suspicion he has the duty to abstain, passing the task to others (can. 1613 ff.; arts. 51-54, 73, 78). In the earlier canonical and civil discipline there was no juridical obligation to abstain; only practice prevailed, or else the parties to the case had to raise the objection of suspicion (to challenge the judge).
According to the CIC the judge (the promoter of justice and the defender of the bond are assimilated to him) must abstain, issuing a reasoned decree to that effect, in case of: a) kinship, b) guardianship or curatorship, c) intimacy or habitual association in life, d) great personal animosity, e) great interest in gain or loss in the case, f) having taken a position by having exercised in the same case the office of advocate or procurator. The enumeration is considered by some to be illustrative, by others, with better reason, exhaustive; however, the irritating clause is lacking. Civil legislation, with greater specification, in substance admits the same causes of suspicion.
The parties, moreover, may raise against the judge and those assimilated to him other causes of suspicion; and against the other members of the tribunal, not excluding the advocate and the procurator (cf. can. 1663 ff.), the causes adduced above and other objective ones. But to prevent the parties from abusing this objection, dragging things out or excluding a judge whom they perceive to be unfavorable to them in the course of the case, the law requires that the objection of suspicion be in principle submitted before the joinder of issue (in civil matters, before the hearing or the treatment of the case), except in the case that the grounds of suspicion emerge later. Furthermore, the challenge must be motivated by causes admitted by law, under penalty for the party of being condemned to compensate the damages incurred because of this incidental cause.
The same law determines who must judge the objection raised by the parties; once the objection is declared well-founded, the Ordinary has the right to substitute other persons, free from suspicion. If the party challenges the Ordinary himself for suspicion, both the judgment (unless the Ordinary abstains from the case) and the eventual substitution of the person belong to the judge immediately superior.
Given the nature of the suspicion, it must be defined as soon as possible, after hearing the interested parties — therefore also the person challenged for suspicion —, and possibly other persons at the discretionary judgment of the judge; nor is there an appeal from the decree. It is disputed, moreover, whether the procedural acts eventually performed by the person challenged for suspicion before the decree, even in his favor, should be considered valid or not.
Bibliography11 works
Sissino da Romallo