Opinion ID: 203803
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Questioning of Witnesses and Commentary During the Trial

Text: Each of the four defendants complains that he was seriously prejudiced by various instances of the district court's questioning of witnesses and commentary during the trial. [3] They argue that the district court's participation in trial demonstrated a bias in favor of the government. On balance, we reject their arguments. [A] trial judge in the federal system retains the common law power to question witnesses and to analyze, dissect, explain, summarize, and comment on the evidence. Logue v. Dore, 103 F.3d 1040, 1045 (1st Cir.1997). Yet there are limits on this power. [T]he judge's participation must be balanced; he cannot become an advocate or otherwise use his judicial powers to advantage or disadvantage a party unfairly. Id. With allegations of judicial bias, we consider whether the comments were improper and, if so, whether the complaining party can show serious prejudice. DeCologero, 530 F.3d at 56. We have carefully evaluated whether the court's rather frequent questioning and commentary crossed the line. These incidents of alleged improper participation were, on the whole, efforts by the district court to clarify testimony, respond to defense counsels' objections, determine the qualifications of expert witnesses, and expedite the trial, all legitimate purposes. We also note that the district court instructed the jury at the outset of trial that I am not here to lead you into a particular result. I am not here to insinuate to you or tell you what your answer should be to the factual questions of the case. So you should disregard any comment that I may make, anything that I may do or say that has nothing to do with rulings or with the applicable law. Cf. Logue, 103 F.3d at 1046-47 (explaining that jury instructions may be sufficient to palliate any untoward effects of the district court's participation in the trial). While district courts must be cautious about such intrusions, we find no prejudicial error here.