Opinion ID: 1016568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Extensive Questioning by Trial Court

Text: “[W]here the claimed error is one of trial interference by the judge, we may not intervene unless the ‘judge's comments were so prejudicial as to deny [the defendants] an opportunity for a fair and impartial trial.’” United States v. Godwin, 272 F.3d 659, 673 (4th Cir. 2001)(citing United States v. Gastiaburo, 16 F.3d 582, 589-90 (4th Cir. 1994)(citing Stillman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 811 F.2d 834, 839 (4th Cir. 1987))). In a case such as this, however, where the defendant failed to properly object, we will review the defendant's contentions of judicial interference for plain error. Id. (citing United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d 1267, 1272 (4th Cir. 1995)). “[A] fair trial, in the constitutional context, is one 20 ‘whose result is reliable.’” Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). Isom argues that the trial court involved itself too heavily in the examination and cross-examination of Ghattan. According to Isom, the court’s line of questioning “did nothing but make Mr. Ghattan look like a dishonest businessman in front of the jury.” (Appellant’s Br. at 37.) “The Judge’s cross-examination of Mr. Ghattan prejudiced the jury against both the witness and, by association, Bennie Isom, the Defendant.” Id. We have reviewed the transcript of the trial for this case and find no reversible error in regards to this issue. To a large degree, the court appears to have been primarily concerned with having Ghattan clarify his answers or having him answer the questions that were asked of him. In fact, the trial court also interjected itself into the questioning of at least two of the Government’s witnesses. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the district court exhibited a hostile attitude toward Isom or Isom’s counsel. For these reasons, we will affirm the district court on this issue.