I agree - the whole motion makes very little sense, in my opinion - even if there was cause to speculate this judge had some sort of bias (and IMO, he doesn't), that would not reflect the entire COA, or why only the one judge who authored the article is named (I think the other is named McCurdie)
I was curious what the article actually said, and had a hard time finding it - turns out it was written by two judges for an annual judicial college publication (hardly a widely read publication, IMO), and was reprinted with updates for the National Judicial College newsletter (again, not exactly USA today).
Unless I didn't understand it correctly, the article is specifically about the death penalty, and that portion of the trial - when CMJA HAD already been found gulty by a jury, so the Judge is perfectly correct in saying her guilt was not in question.
What surprised me most was that the article seems to me to be an argument AGAINST the death penalty, and has little or nothing to do with her guilt phase trial, so this motion makes even less sense to me - and I agree, CMJA is probably behind it, IMO.
Link to the article, if anyone wants to read :
http://www.judges.org/jody-arias-and-the-cost-of-seeking-the-death-penalty/
I apologize if this was already posted.