skepticism what sets this one apart is the judge's publicly professing after presiding over two mistrials ending in hung juries that she believed the defendant was guilty this after the judge had unilaterally raised the prospect of her own recusal suggesting it was quote the right thing to do only to backtrack sharply without such stacked of explanation to make matters worse the judge pronounced guilt in the absence of the defendant and his counsel has any excuse them from the courtroom moments earlier adding all of these anomalies together your honour's a neutral observer might reasonably question the judge impartiality concluding that you predetermine the ultimate issue of the defendant's guilt or non guilt now because the resulting appearance of impropriety subverted the presumption of innocence or criminal justice system score and acted to benefit defendants or give them some sort of a windfall based on the appearances of partiality or after the fact nd guessing there's a much broader policy objective of play here and that's to promote public confidence in the integrity of our of the judiciary and i would submit to the court that that concern which falls squarely within this court supervisory authority to  is more vital now than ever with our courts increasingly viewed wrongly in my opinion but on social media and regular media and in the public as just more ordinary political branches as if judges are always going to vote based on labels like conservative or liberal or something like that then we have increasingly rather than cases being seen as  unimpeachable impartiality strikes me as more important than ever in today's climate and that's one reason why the supreme court in recent two thousand and sixteen williams case and this court in a dating back requires automatic reversal of lucille in conviction and that leads me to my nd point this may seem like a drastic remedy in the abstract although i think it's commensurate with the harm lot to  two years two and a half years in very very harsh pandemic conditions not only because of cobra nineteen but because he's a foreign national in an immigration detention facility motion invalid in pennsylvania so even if the court were to think this would be a drastic remedy in the abstract which again i think it's appropriate whenever the automatic reversal in the case of darcy wed  along the lines of what you deem to be the appropriate result again again this is what the average citizen would the impression that the average citizen might be from this record nothing thank you have a couple questions your client was found guilty by a jury and not by the district court correct that is correct are you arguing that the district court comment somehow made their way or were known to the jury or are you making this separate argument that even if they did not in fact the outcome of this case faced with a question of pretrial release where the court quite properly assesses the strength of the evidence against the defendant and makes a comment to the effect that one of the factors this this comment by the judge turns the clickable presumption of innocence literally on its head it flies in the face of what we're asking juries to do to begin with which is something of a legal fiction as anybody who's ever tried a case in the district  knows full well but nonetheless that's what we're asked that's a legal fiction we're asking jurors to indulge if the judge can't indulge that and and defies it in open court on the record what kind of that hearing it would not have violated the recusal statute but because she said something quite similar considering the detention of a codefendant you do think it's a violation of for  was saying it ahead of the co defendants sentencing and making reference to the concerns she wanted to draw addressed at sentencing that even though frazier thompson the coldest on that had just been found guilty by a jury that refused to convict mr we statute that was passed in the routinely six as part of the bail reform act to satisfy in part constitutional concerns raised with locking people up before they had been convicted of anything and the implications of that the questions not to use the opportunity to respond to one of the judges as an opportunity to expand the argument let me ask you i have you for a moment this is your strongest  well this one cuts across the whole case judge to i said argument on conscious avoidance might well require the reversal of the entire conviction in addition  refusal statute or even use the word recusal any point in the question there was never a claim of unfairness or that the district judge was not even handed and as such judge morris decision not to transfer the case is reviewed for clean air in fact that happens routinely during the course of the proceedings turning to a judge or genies comment in addition to pretrial release it's routine during the course of a trial for a district judge to us to rule on the admission of co statements which require as a predicate as a predicate the district judge to make a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant and the declarant were in a conspiracy together that happens routinely at  routinely assess relative culpability of the defendant to be sentenced with other members of the conspiracy including defendants who have not yet been convicted the defense's argument here would require waiting until everybody has either put guilty or been convicted to trial before sentencing any of the defendants and that's just not not a rule that's ever been announced or that would be fair to the defense with respect to the case here in the contemporaneous evidence at the time including the fact that there was no indication by the defense that there was any issue is evidence that there was no perception of a partiality and that the refusal argument before this court is a fallback position for a defendant has been convicted to trial w a fair reading of that statement i don't believe so your honor for a few different reasons st a discussion of relative culpability is not the same as a finding of guilt it's more akin to as i noted earlier what happens routinely at sentencing in most i defended cases where a judge assesses the defendant in front of her or him in the context of a broader conspiracy you know as as part of a pr sentence investigation report that's prepared prior to sentencing the probation department describes the overall conspiracy including the activities and conduct of defendants who have not yet been convicted and that all goes into the mix under thirty a what a judge pronounces sentence so in response to the question a discussion a real to cope ability particularly in the context in which judge force made those comments which was to focus the codefendant and his counsel on the types of arguments the types of submission that she thought would be most helpful in sentencing it's not the same as a pronouncement of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ok thank you well let's wait one second i'm sorry this is the courtroom that pretty i don't see just khurana is connected to the call point i agree with my friend on the other side literally the supreme court's ninety four case it's human nature for a judge to hold and form opinions about a person will think you know all the circumstances and i am not going to