Opinion ID: 4564893
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Judicial Interference

Text: Brown’s third argument is that the district court denied him a fair trial by intervening excessively to question witnesses himself, thus impermissibly interfering with Brown’s ability to put on a case. This claim also has no merit. Brown relies on United States v. Hickman, 592 F.2d 931, 933 (6th Cir. 1979), in which we disapproved of extensive judicial intrusion into the case via the questioning of witnesses. But in Hickman, the judge interrupted the defense counsel more than 250 times over the course of a one-day trial. Id. at 932. A review of the record in the case before us reveals nothing even close to that. Indeed, Brown cites not one specific instance in his brief, much less 250. To be sure, the judge interrupted Brown a few times. (Hanover estimates five or six.) But the character of these interruptions is far from the prejudicial interference that Hickman was worried about. The court’s interruptions in this case were designed to get to the point or help Brown’s counsel in his attempt to introduce evidence—interventions that must be classified as either neutral or helpful, and are consonant with the proper role of the trial judge. Nor were such interruptions unique to Brown’s counsel. In general, the judge had to intervene with several of the lawyers so that they would develop evidence in ways that were consistent with the Rules and common practice, or occasionally to question witnesses himself. There was no abuse of the trial judge’s role here, much less plain error. Brown has raised three issues to no avail. We AFFIRM the decision of the district court in Brown’s case, No. 19-5550/-5551. Nos. 19-5483/5550/5551/5562 Hanover Am. Ins. Co. v. Tattooed Page 14 Millionaire Ent’mt, et al.