It has been more than a month since lawyers argued before an appeals court that the judge in the case against former Allegheny County Coroner Dr. Cyril H. Wecht should be removed, and still there has been no decision.

That same judge canceled jury selection and the trial itself this week. It was to have begun tomorrow.

If U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab is removed, it could send the case back to its beginning, or maybe not. That largely will depend on what the appeals court says in its ruling.

Roy Englert Jr., an appellate lawyer in Washington, D.C., won the removal of a judge in May 2004 by the same 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals that is hearing the Wecht case.

His case involved five companies driven into bankruptcy because of asbestos liability. The district court judge in the matter appointed a group of advisers to help him sift through the complex litigation. The problem, Mr. Englert said, was that two of the advisers had conflicts of interest: They represented some of the asbestos claimants.

After the district judge wrote a 100-page opinion refusing to recuse himself, the companies filed an appeal to the 3rd Circuit.

Five weeks after hearing oral arguments, the court issued its opinion, saying the judge in the matter didn't have actual bias, but that the public had to be sure the system wasn't tainted.

In that case, Mr. Englert said, there had been surprisingly little progress in the court proceedings, so the new judges appointed had almost nothing to rehear.

In the Wecht matter, that probably would not be the case.

In the 10 months since Dr. Wecht was indicted, 459 documents have been filed on the docket. Of those, 111 were motions that required decisions by the judge.

If Judge Schwab is removed, lawyers on both sides will have the opportunity to file motions asking the new judge to reconsider the various decisions already issued in the case.

And the 3rd Circuit opinion might even require that, former 3rd Circuit Judge Timothy Lewis said. The appeals court might pick apart some of the rulings made by Judge Schwab and order that they be revisited. It could, on the other hand, simply leave it to the discretion of the new judge.

"There's such a range of options," he said. "The Court of Appeals has the opportunity and duty to examine everything."

Winning a recusal motion is relatively rare. To prevail, the appealing party has to prove that there is an appearance of impropriety or actual bias on the part of the judge.

In this case, Dr. Wecht's defense attorneys say Judge Schwab had improper, secret communication with the government's lawyers and that he has shown bias in rulings against Dr. Wecht. Other allegations include that Judge Schwab improperly reviewed potential evidence on his own to reach a ruling and that he has stopped defense attorneys from defending Dr. Wecht zealously.

In June, Judge Schwab threatened to hold a contempt hearing for the defense attorneys and throw them in jail for their failure to follow his pretrial orders.

"It's always inherently a very difficult decision to ask for the removal of a judge," Mr. Englert said. "As the colloquial saying goes, 'If you shoot at the king, you better not miss.' "

Though he believes that no judge would purposely hold it against a party if a recusal motion failed, Mr. Englert said they all are human. "A judge, no matter how hard he or she tried, might fall prey to not giving a break to someone they find offensive," he said.

Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at Duke University and appellate lawyer, agreed.

"The danger in filing a recusal motion and losing is you've further alienated the judge," he said.

But Judge Lewis said that should not be the case.

"No federal judge should or would do that," he said. "No federal judge should ever, ever, ever allow their personal feelings or slights in any way interfere with future rulings."

The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on a number of cases Sept. 12, the same day it listened to lawyers in the Wecht matter. It has issued opinions in at least two of those other cases.

Once the three appellate judges on Dr. Wecht's case reach their decision, one of them will be assigned to write the court's opinion, which will be circulated to the entire 3rd Circuit for the rest of the judges to review and comment upon. Only after that would it be released publicly. There is no mandatory time frame.

Typically, Mr. Chemerinsky said, appeals courts rule within 90 days, though it can go much longer than that. Because the court passed Judge Schwab's scheduled trial date, he added, it's obvious that timing is not a consideration.

"It's much more important to get the opinion done right than to get it done quickly."

Though none of the experts would go as far as to say that the appeals court's staying Dr. Wecht's case is an indication that removing Judge Schwab is a lock, they all agreed that it means the court found at least some merit in the arguments offered by Dr. Wecht.

"It's a very good sign for the defense," Mr. Chemerinsky said.

Judge Lewis agreed, to a point.

"They're listening, and it means they have a chance," he said. "[But] a stay in a vacuum doesn't mean anything."

In the interim, the delay in the trial could be considered at least a small victory for the defense, Judge Lewis said, as it will have more time to prepare.

"The prosecution doesn't need more time. They're done," he said. "They've been working on this case for a long time."