The Webb case deals with a recalcitrant judge and the truculent sentencing issue of whether the Guidelines' mandated sentences for drug addicts is fair. The Marin-Castaneda case explores some aspects of frequent claim by aliens that they should be entitled to some type of downward departure based on their deportability. Thus, judges sometimes assume active roles in questioning witnesses because they are anxious to move the case along more quickly so they can get on to their next cases. But there is an equally important reason.
Judges are probably the closest thing that America has to true royalty.
Seated in the captious glitter of their marble palaces, they have become accustomed to receiving a level of deference and homage that is rarely accorded to Presidents and Popes. That aura of royalty makes it very difficult for defense counsel to criticize anything that a judge might do or say - especially in front of the jury. Yet, it is undisputed that the role of the judges in the eyes of the jurors is particularly awesome. In each of these cases, convictions were reversed because the trial judges exhibited a level of partiality in the trial proceedings that was so pronounced that it denied the defendants their ability to receive a fair trial. In the Tilghman case, the defendant was charged with making false statements on Government forms r elating to his receipt of disability benefits, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1920.