Among many other issues, the court rejects the defendant’s argument that he could not get a fair trial or appellate review because the superior court judge and the Supreme Court justices are all subject to judicial elections. The opinion summarizes the argument: “judges who are subject to election cannot be impartial because they might be removed from office if they rule in favor of a capital defendant.” For a judge, elections might be like a crocodile in his or her bathtub, and the voters’ removal of Supreme Court justices might become more common than a hundred-year flood, but the court finds they do not present the “extreme facts” necessary to cast doubt on judicial impartiality.