Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for new trial because judge’s tirade to defense attorney that evidence he sought to admit was “outrageous” and “illegal” prejudiced “defendant’s receiving a fair trial.”); People v. Conyers, 194 Mich.App. 395, 400, 404, 405, 487 N.W.2d 787, 788, 791 (1992) (determining that judge violated impartiality requirement in his statement to the jury: “I cannot, in honesty, say as I look at [the defendant], that I presume him to be innocent,” and that judge’s “excessive interference in the examination of witnesses, repeated rebukes and disparaging remarks directed at defendant’s counsel, and marked impatience in the presence of the jury displayed an attitude of partisanship, which resulted in the denial of a fair trial.”); State v. Staley, 292 N.C. 160, 165-70, 232 S.E.2d 680, 684-86 (1977) (<HOLDING>); McMahan v. State, 96 Okla.Crim. 176, 177-78, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial judges act of implying to jury that defense witnesses were lying his overly interrogative role in favor of prosecution his failure to rule on defense motions and multiple reprimands to defense counsel for speechmaking prejudiced jury against defense (B) holding prosecutors statement that defendant and defense counsel were lying when they pleaded not guilty was improper (C) holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity (D) holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second (E) holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense
Output (English): holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity