Opinion ID: 1788754
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Treatment of Defense Witnesses

Text: While Chiddester was being questioned on a treatise, the court stated, He can answer, but what I just heard said can be a result of this type of thing. (Emphasis added.) (Injecting himself again.) Vol. XXIII, 1661. When Chiddester said, I didn't say that, the trial court responded, I didn't say you did. That's what I just heard that the book said that. (Emphasis added.) Id. When Chiddester attempted to explain, trial court interrupted: Just a moment. You wait until a question. You can say how it doesn't on Redirect, or when you are explaining. I'm not saying it does or doesn't. The jury doesn't need to misunderstand me. I'm not saying it does or does not say that. I'm saying they may infer that, and you may certainly may explain in your opinion why it does not say that. (Emphasis added.) Vol. IX at 1661-62. This comment clearly indicates the court's opinion of what the treatise stated, which opinion in fact was flat wrong. It effectively told the jury it could infer that the treatise supported plaintiffs; if it didn't draw that inference, the jury would be disagreeing with the court. This was unfair and usurped the jury's decision. During General Motors' cross-examination of Marcus Dean Williams, the trial court stated: I don't see the benefit of going over and asking him what those pictures show, when the pictures do speak for themselves... . that is not a valid purpose in Cross-Examination. Let's get to something that means something. It's not important to know how many pictures a witness can count. Ask him a question that matters in the trial of this case. ... . What difference does it make? (Emphasis added.) Vol. IV, 658-50. Similarly, when plaintiffs' counsel objected that inspections and procedures performed at the Tonawanda Forge plant were not relevant, the trial court stated: That is my inclination to feel the same way. I don't want to cut you off from anything you determine might be beneficial to the jury making its determination; however, time lost can never be regained, and everybody's time is important to them. ... . You open up a whole world of rebuttal. We could start a brand-new case in rebuttal after we got through with this, about whether those are done correctly, and whether they are proper, or whether there are errors in those processes, is what you are doing. ... . I don't see the value of it, but I am going to let you put on your case. (Emphasis added.) Vol. IX, 1715-17. This is like Mississippi Power Co. v. Harrison, 247 Miss. 400, 152 So.2d 892, 901 (1963), where this Court found prejudicial error in the trial court's comment that evidence is not essential here. It is not material and will encumber the record to the extent there will be no end. (Emphasis added.) See Sivley v. Sivley, 96 Miss. 137, 51 So. 457, 458 (1910) (reversible error where trial court said evidence did not amount to anything and did not have anything to do with the issue in this cause.). [9]