Opinion ID: 197760
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: alleged errors in the conduct of the trial

Text: A. Questioning of Witnesses by the District Court. The defendant objects to the questioning by the court of the co-defendant LaFlamme and Michael Wimsatt.8 The defendant points to the fact that the district court questioned LaFlamme about the presence and use of the pug mill on the site, the fact that soil had not been recycled even though Beede had produced manifests to the contrary and the role of Beede in the production and mailing of manifests. The fact questions in this case were not within the every day experience of jurors such as they are in the case of an automobile accident nor did it involve a subject such as homicide, rape or robbery that are unfortunately commonplace in our society. Against that background, it is appropriate to again emphasize the previously discussed well settled rule that a trial judge has a perfect right to participate in the trial and to question witnesses. United States v. Gonz lez-Soberal, 109 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 1997). We therefore view the district court's questioning of LaFlamme, in the context of this case, as a judicial effort to assist the jury in a comprehensive and balanced understanding of relevant facts in a complicated setting and within the permission acknowledged by Fed. R. Evid. 614(b). We find no error. 8 The challenged questioning of Wimsatt has been addressed previously and we see no need to revisit the issue. See supra discussion at 11-14. -21- B. The Refusal of the District Court to Exclude the Testimony of Matthew Kelly. The court issued a sequestration order as to the witnesses and despite that order, the government witness, Matthew Kelly was present for approximately 15 minutes of the testimony of the co-defendant and cooperating witness, Robert LaFlamme. Before allowing Kelly to testify, the trial court engaged in a voir dire of Kelly and then concluded that Kelly could testify. We find neither an abuse of discretion nor prejudice to the defendant in that the defendant was acquitted on the count to which LaFlamme's testimony was directed while Kelly was present. See United States v. Sep lveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1177 (1st Cir. 1993) and United States v. Blasco, 702 F.2d 1315, 1327 (11th Cir. 1983). V. ISSUES RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT IN HIS PRO SE BRIEF V. ISSUES RAISED BY THE DEFENDANT IN HIS PRO SE BRIEF
The defendant filed a separate brief with this court and argues that the United States Code is not real law, and also that he was impermissibly convicted of a violation of the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343 because the legislative history does not explicitly anticipate that telephones and facsimile machines could serve as a basis for a violation of the statute. We find no merit in either argument.