Opinion ID: 164578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: district court's comments to the jury

Text: 33 Defendant asserts that the district court crossed acceptable bounds when it spoke with the jurors about [his] confession, prior conviction, and additional `background' about the case, and violated ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3(B)(10) by impair[ing] a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case. Aplt. Br. at 28 (quoting United States v. Quesada-Bonilla, 952 F.2d 597, 600 (1st Cir.1991) (quoting ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3B(10) and commentary)). Defendant further asserts that the district court violated ABA Standard for Criminal Justice 15-4.3 by expressing an opinion on Defendant's guilt, and making statements that could affect a juror's future service. Aplt. Br. at 28. Although conceding that the district court's remarks do not warrant reversal of [his] conviction, he contends that the comments require resentencing because they demonstrate that he was denied his right to a fair sentencing by an impartial judge. Aplt. Br. at 29-30. Defendant specifically argues that the district court's comments demonstrate that it improperly failed to consider an acceptance-of-responsibility adjustment. According to Defendant, the court prejudged the sentencing issues and ... failed to exercise its discretion on the acceptance of responsibility adjustment. Reply Br. at 6. 34 Because Defendant did not object below to the district court's comments, we review these claims for plain error. Plain error occurs when there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, which (3) affects substantial rights, and which (4) seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Price, 265 F.3d 1097, 1107 (10th Cir.2001). 35 Applying the plain-error standard, we conclude that the district court's comments do not require resentencing. Even if the comments were improper, concern about prejudice to future defendants is irrelevant to Defendant's conviction or sentence. We will not set aside a defendant's sentence on the ground that the judge's remarks might prejudice a future defendant. The prejudice must be to the defendant himself. See 28 U.S.C. § 2111 (On the hearing of any appeal or writ of certiorari in any case, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the record without regard to errors or defects which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.); United States v. Garcia, 78 F.3d 1457, 1466 (10th Cir.1996) (error in sentencing procedure not ground for reversal when defendant fail[ed] to prove any prejudice whatsoever); cf. Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar. Ass'n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993) (one does not have standing to assert a violation of rights belonging to another, since the person entitled to a right is the only one who can be directly injured by its deprivation). We therefore need not consider whether the court's comments violated the Canon and Standard cited by Defendant. 36 As for Defendant's claim that the trial judge's comments to the jury indicated bias with respect to sentencing, we note that for bias or prejudice to be disqualifying, it must stem from an extrajudicial source, United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 583, 86 S.Ct. 1698, 16 L.Ed.2d 778 (1966), unless the judge display[s] a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible, Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). The judge's comments in this case were based solely on the proceedings before him, and they reflect exasperation rather than antagonism toward Defendant. See id. (judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge). What the judge said simply suggested that Defendant's decision not to enter into a plea agreement was unwise, and that his decision would affect his sentence. The remarks about downward adjustment not only failed to show bias, they were accurate. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 (governing grant of downward departure for acceptance of responsibility).