A.D.A. McCauley (or against the defendant). I am free of any disabling prejudice towards the Commonwealth and its attorneys. Considerations other than the law have not and will not influence any of my rulings. I do not fear or favor the Commonwealth or the defendant. A person aware of all the facts and circumstances would not reasonably question my impartiality. “A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party’s lawyer ...” Supreme Judicial Court Rule 3:09, Canon 3(E)(1)(a). Recusal generally is left to the discretion of the trial judge. Haddadv. Gonzalez, 410 Mass. 855,862 (1991) (<HOLDING>). When faced “with a question of [her] capacity
holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias holding that isolated statements of judge viewed in the context of a fourteenday trial did not support a claim of bias holding that the fact that the judge on remand had presided over the defendants first trial and had expressed the opinion that the victims testimony was highly credible did not support recusal for bias recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that a trial judge has discretion to exclude evidence of pending charges and that where the defendant was given a full opportunity outside the presence of the jury to develop a foundation for bias but failed to do so the trial judge did not abuse its discretion