DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE TRIAL JUDGES ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN THE APPELLANT'S PUNISHMENT HEAR
ING WAS A VIOLATION OF HIS SUBSTANTIAL RIGHTS,HHEREBY NO OBJECTION IS REQUIRED
TO WARRANT APPELLATE REVERSAL .(See R.R.3:56-58).The proceedings concluded.(R.R- .3:58.).
ARGUMENT
The Court of Appeals has decided an important question of state and federal law in a way that conflicts with the applicable decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. When the judge engaged in extensive cross-examination of Appellant,whereby conducting her own investigation,and also the judges verbal commentary through- hout Appellant's testimony clearly demonstrates the trial court's failure to remain impartial during the proceeding.In the following,the record is clear that the trial court took a biased position against Appellant,throughout the entire proceeding,and specifically,the judge made these following comments in response to Appellant's testimony during the State's cross-examination: ."Okay.I know how it's gonna be.You go ahead and answer however you want to." #R.R.3:21). ."That doesn't make-sir,why don't you want to answer?You might as well just shut it down.Just shut it down.Because either you are having a real hard - • fcime understanding the questions,or you just don't want to say because yo u're trying to protect your buddy."(R.R.3:22). ."See-see how he has more loyalty to seme thug,some theif ,than he does to his own family?Go ahead sir;you keep playing this game."(R.R.3:23). ."I want to hear the conversations that were going on in that car,what y'all we were doing all day.Obviously,you weren't out looking for a job,right?"(R.R.3 ."ncLWj weren't working.You weren't doing anything-were you high?You were hri.dj'Agh.Did y'all go to a crack house?Were y'all talking about robbing people? Tell us the story.That's what he wants to know."(R.R.3:24). ."You think we're fools,don't you?"(R.R.3:24). ."Why don't you just be honest and say,I was robbing,we needed to rob,we ne- ededed money ,we needed drugs so we were thinking of ways to make money illeg- alally.ls that what happened?"(R.R.3:24-25). Further,during the State's cross-examination,when the Appellant explained various details of his charge for aggravated on a public servant case,at R.R.3 2. 25-26,the Appellant stated that he was sitting in the car and the police offie cer jumped in the window,but without saying a word to the Appellant as.the Ap pellant was pulling out of the driveway..(R.R.3:26).The judge interrupted and erroneously said,"It sounds like you need a trial.Maybe if they bring the wit ness that saw you....Maybe it will refresh your recollection,you using a crow-. bar.Yoan don't remeber that?"(R.R.3:27).The Appellant explained that he did not remember a crowbar.Then when the prosecutor asked how the Appellant ran into a tree during the incident,and when the Appellant stated,"There was no tree out there,sir."(R.R.3:27).The prosecutor requested that the court with draw Appellant's plea.(R.R.3:27).Appellant's attorney requested permission to"go back on redirect,"which the court allowed,(R.R.3:28),and again the Ap pellant was questioned by his counsel about the details that were included in the police report,and though the Appellant disagreed with some of the details from the police report,he did in fact,admit to committing the offense.However, the judge,during the redirect,violated the Appellant's due process,by her fa-.