Opinion ID: 684388
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Clarence Gleason

Text: 15 The trial judge's two other allegedly improper interrogations (Def.Br. 26) occurred at the sentencing hearing. The first involved petitioner's father, Clarence Gleason, who testified for his son in mitigation. During the hearing the following exchange occurred: 16 DEFENSE COUNSEL: Was there in fact an argument in your house on that particular morning? 17 CLARENCE GLEASON: Yes, my kid [Mika] came home after being beaten up by a couple of those guys over there. 18 THE COURT: Were you there, sir? 19 A: No. 20 THE COURT: So you don't know that? 21 A: Okay, okay, forget it. He came home beaten up, that I know. 22 THE COURT: That you know. 23 Pet.Br. 26-27. Petitioner claims that the court's questioning was improper and served no purpose other than to discredit the defendant's father. Id. First, since this occurred at the sentencing hearing following a bench trial, there was no one in front of whom the witness could be discredited except the judge himself who asked the questions. Second, because the witness was attempting to testify to facts of which he had no personal knowledge, the trial judge's questioning, though perhaps unnecessary, was a proper attempt to eliminate possible confusion, particularly with respect to Clarence Gleason's claim that it was a couple of those guys over there who beat his son.