Opinion ID: 292272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Interrogation Of Defendant

Text: 15 During Dr. Stone's cross-examination he was asked the following questions: 16 'Q. Let's take the year 1962. Do you remember back in 1962 when you signed Government's Exhibit 1-A, that it purported to show roughly $5800 taxable income? Do you remember that at that time, sir? 17
18 Q. I am talking about at the time you signed your name to it. THE COURT: 19 He said he remembered it. BY MR. DANIEL: 20 Q When you signed your name, did you have reason to believe that you had in fact earned more than $5800 during that year? 21 A. I received a printed instruction. I repeat that I received a printed instruction from Mr. Weiner, who sent in this and said, 'Doctor Stone, please sign on the dotted line and send the Government X number of dollars, and here is my bill.' THE COURT: 22 Actually, though you knew that you received pretty near ten times that amount?THE WITNESS: 23 Perhaps I did receive more than that. I don't know how much more, your Honor.' 24 Appellant contends that the question interposed by the Court constitutes 'plain error affecting the substantial rights' of the Doctor because 'the trial Court in effect accused the defendant of being guilty of willful income tax evasion (and although) no objection was made to the accusation    none was necessary since it utterly destroyed the defense in the case and deprived the defendant of a fair trial.' 25 Thus the issue to be resolved is whether the District Judge contravened the revered constitutional line between a fair trial by jury, and a trial uninfluenced by comments or opinions of the trial Judge indicating his belief in the accused's guilt. 26 We are perfectly clear that this sole question asked by the Judge did not 'cut into the presumption of innocence to which (defendant was) entitled'. United States v. Brandt, 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 653. Although a trial judge in a federal criminal trial may not ask questions or make comments that indicate, directly, or indirectly, the defendant's guilt, 10 the Court nevertheless, in the aid of truth and the furtherance of justice, may question a witness. Gomila v. United States, 5 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 372. 27 In this instance the defendant had evaded the prosecutor's question and the Court merely sought a responsive answer. The proof is once again the puddings eating, for counsel made no objection, motion for a mistrial, or for other Court instruction to the jury. Now, as an afterthought, he vigorously asserts what was not clear to anyone present-- that the single question asked by the trial Judge convinced the jurors of his belief in the defendant's guilt. Viewing the record as a whole we are unable to discern any prejudice arising from the question nor anything about it which would indicate to the jury that the Judge was 'interested in the case on the side of the prosecution.' Blumberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 1955, 222 F.2d 496. 11 28 Affirmed.