Opinion ID: 242210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Erroneous Characterization of the Evidence.

Text: 31 The trial judge conveyed to the jury highly improper characterizations of important evidence: 32
33 The Government's witnesses described Blunt's acts. If the jury wished to infer from his acts that they were planned, we could not disturb their inference. There was, however, no direct evidence that the acts were planned. Indeed, Dr. Gilbert testified that, in his opinion, Blunt's acts had not been planned. At most, therefore, whether the acts were planned was an issue to be determined by the jury. 21 If they concluded the acts were not planned, but were, as Dr. Gilbert said, manifestations of panic characteristic of Blunt's mental illness, it cannot be said the jury would nevertheless have convicted Blunt. 34 The trial judge obviously believed that Blunt had planned his acts. Whether, within his power to comment on the evidence, it would have been proper for him to convey his belief to the jury is not the question here. 22 He did not tell the jury he believed the acts had been planned. He told them, in colloquies with defense psychiatrists and in his instructions, that the acts had in fact been planned, thus taking from the jury an issue which was for them to decide. He put these questions to Dr. Perretti: 35 Q.    do you mean to say that while planning this robbery, because it must have been planned, while committing it, and the selling of an article, the proceeds of the robbery, that he didn't know that it was wrong to do all this? 36