Opinion ID: 742623
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Questioning Defense Witnesses

Text: 24 Matt argues that Judge Munson's questioning displayed bias and deprived Matt of a fair trial. 25 In determining whether a trial judge's conduct deprived a defendant of a fair trial, we must examine the entire record to determine if jurors have been impressed with the trial judge's partiality to one side to the point that this became a factor in the[ir] determination. The district judge may actively participate and give his own impression, as long as he does not become an advocate for the government. Where the court assumes the role of prosecutor and displays bias, reversal is required. The judge should ask only those questions necessary to clarify ambiguities, correct misstatements, or obtain information necessary to make rulings. If a judge's actions create an impression of partisanship, curative instructions will generally not save the day. United States v. Leslie, 103 F.3d 1093, 1104 (2d Cir.) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 1713, 137 L.Ed.2d 837 (1997). 26 The questioning of Matt was intensive but, viewing the record as a whole, sought merely to dispel the fog shrouding Matt's numerous bank accounts, reasons for opening such accounts, and the chronology of his affairs. In essence, the questions to Matt aided the jury's understanding of his testimony. 27 The questions to Matt's expert witness, excerpted above, did not deny Matt a fair trial. First, while the judge made statements that the expert's theories were not correct, the expert stated that perhaps she had not made herself clear. It was reasonable for the judge to ask questions that clarified issues for himself and the jury. Second, after the expert tried to explain her theory of a check kiting scheme, the judge commented that was not his experience, and stated, I don't know who you've been dealing with. After these comments, however, the judge quickly added that his experience did not matter because he did not know the thoughts of those with whom the expert associated. 28 Finally, the judge asked the expert a hypothetical about a check kiting. The expert explained that she believed that the judge's example did not illustrate a check kite if the person's intent is to borrow money because commonly businesses borrow money. The Court responded, Not that way. Tellingly, however, after this comment, the expert essentially agreed with the judge. Viewing the record as a whole, it is clear that Judge Munson's comments and questions did not deny Matt a fair trial.