Opinion ID: 200604
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Active participation of the court

Text: Defendants allege that at various junctures during the trial the district court inaccurately and prejudicially commented on the evidence, truncated the defendants' cross-examination of several plaintiffs, and chastised defense witnesses in front of the jury. As we have previously observed, it is well settled that the trial judge has a perfect right -- albeit a right that should be exercised with care -- to participate actively in the trial proper. Logue v. Dore, 103 F.3d 1040, 1045 (1st Cir. 1997). A trial judge retains the common law power to question witnesses and to comment on the evidence . . . . An inquiry into the judge's conduct of the trial necessarily turns on the question of whether the complaining party can show serious prejudice. United States v. Gonzalez-Soberal, 109 F.3d 64, 72 (1st Cir. 1997). We reiterate that the complaints grounded in defendants' case in chief are defaulted on the basis of an inadequate record. Defendants also fail to demonstrate serious prejudice arising from the court's participation during plaintiffs' case in chief. This was a lengthy and contentious trial featuring dozens of witnesses, numerous sidebar conferences, and a myriad of other -23- procedural delays arising, inter alia, from the inartful labeling and introduction of exhibits, translation difficulties, and a continuing stream of objections from both parties. Under these challenging circumstances, the court's efforts to accelerate the pace of the trial with infrequent commentary on the evidence and the occasional prodding of witnesses were amply justified and well within its discretion. See Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 140 F.3d 312, 315 (1st Cir. 1998) (The Civil Rules endow judges with formidable case-management authority . . . . In exercising this power, trial judges enjoy great latitude.) (citations omitted).