Opinion ID: 702508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the trial court's role

Text: 61 Garza argues that the district court erred by acting as an advocate for the government throughout his guilt and punishment hearings. To constitute error, the district judge's actions, viewed as a whole, must amount to an intervention that could have led the jury to a predisposition of guilt by improperly confusing the functions of judge and prosecutor. United States v. Bermea, 30 F.3d 1539, 1569 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1113, 130 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1995). To meet this test, the judge's intervention must be quantitatively and qualitatively substantial. Id. 62 Garza complains of two instances in which the district court elicited evidence from witnesses that was harmful to him. First, he complains that the district court elicited harmful information from the government's pathologist, Dr. Lawrence Dahm. Second, Garza complains that the court impeached Elizabeth Murillo, a psychotherapist who testified as Garza's expert mitigation witness. We have carefully reviewed the record of the exchanges the district court had with these witnesses and find that the court did not exceed its proper role in either incident. 20