Can You Get a New Judge on Remand? What Illinois’ Supreme Court Said in People v. Class

One of the first questions clients ask after deciding to file a post-conviction petition is whether they will be stuck in front of the same judge who convicted them. The concern is understandable, and in many cases, well-founded. Judges are human, and a judge who presided over a trial and entered a guilty verdict may, consciously or not, be resistant to reconsidering that outcome.

The short answer is that reassignment is possible. In August 2025, the Illinois Supreme Court addressed this question directly in People v. Class, 2025 IL 129695, and its ruling has practical consequences for every post-conviction litigant in Illinois.

The defendant in Class filed a series of post-conviction petitions over the years, ultimately advancing a claim of actual innocence supported by witness affidavits. The circuit court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the appellate court reversed, remanded the case for a third-stage evidentiary hearing, and, on its own initiative, ordered the matter reassigned to a different judge.

The Illinois Supreme Court took up the case to address the reassignment order specifically.

The Supreme Court confirmed that an appellate court has the authority to sua sponte order judicial reassignment on remand in post-conviction proceedings. But that authority is reserved for rare circumstances. The Court identified three situations that can justify reassignment:

•         The record clearly reveals bias on the part of the judge;

•         The record shows a probability of bias; or

•         The record demonstrates actual prejudice toward the defendant.

What is not enough: an adverse ruling. The Court was explicit that a judge’s decision to dismiss a post-conviction petition, standing alone, does not disqualify that judge from presiding on remand. The relevant inquiry is whether there is evidence of extrajudicial bias or a high degree of antagonism to the defendant’s claims. Prior adverse rulings, without more, simply do not clear that bar.

I have successfully moved cases away from original trial judges, and Class does not change the fact that reassignment is available. It simply clarifies what must be shown.

Winning a reassignment argument requires building a record. That means identifying and documenting specific conduct. Comments from the bench, rulings that reflect personal animosity rather than legal reasoning, or a pattern of behavior suggesting the judge cannot approach the case with an open mind. A judge who denied your petition is not automatically biased. A judge who made statements during the proceedings suggesting personal disdain for the defendant or contempt for the nature of the claims may be.

If you believe the judge presiding over your post-conviction case cannot give you a fair hearing, the question to ask is not “Did this judge rule against me?” but rather “Is there something in the record that shows this judge is biased against me specifically?”

The assignment of an original trial judge in a post-conviction proceeding can feel like an obstacle. Class confirms that reassignment remains a tool available to litigants. I usually advise attempting to move the matter to a new judge and have been successful. If you or a loved one is navigating a post-conviction matter and have questions about judicial assignment or any other aspect of the process, contact the Law Offices of Douglas H. Johnson for a consultation.