Court Opinion

ID: 9753765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:26:32.785898+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:41.540682
License: Public Domain

ADKINS, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in parts I, III, and IV of the opinion in this case. But because I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority in Part II, I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion.
Part II deals with the conduct of the trial judge-conduct, argues appellant, that shows the judge “abandoned his role as impartial arbiter early on, repeatedly took over the questioning of the prosecution witnesses, often at critical points of their testimony, sometimes summarized their testimony with leading questions and took on an inquisitorial role.” The majority candidly acknowledges that the trial judge erred in this regard: “it is painfully obvious in the case sub judice that the trial judge ofttimes overly injected himself as an inquisitor throughout the direct examination of both victims.” Majority opinion at 14a. With this conclusion I wholeheartedly agree. I cannot agree that the judge’s improper conduct was harmless error beyond a reasonable doubt.
*626“The law requires the trial of a defendant not only to be fair but to give every appearance of being fair.” Scott v. State, 289 Md. 647, 655, 426 A.2d 923 (1981). One of the most fundamental characteristics of a fair trial is that an impartial judge preside over it. Marshall v. State, 291 Md. 205, 214, 434 A.2d 555 (1981). As the late Judge Lowe put it, “[t]he trial judge’s role is that of an impartial arbitrator and that appearance is not generally compatible with an inquisitorial role.” Bell v. State, 48 Md.App. 669, 678, 429 A.2d 300, cert. denied, 291 Md. 771 (1981). The judge must be “scrupulously careful to preserve an attitude of impartiality.” Patterson v. State, 275 Md. 563, 578-80, 342 A.2d 660 (1975). When the trial judge undertakes the trial functions of the prosecutor, that essential impartiality is lost; “our adversarial system [is] abandoned in favor of an inquisitorial one.” Smith v. State, 64 Md.App. 625, 634, 498 A.2d 284 (1985). That, I believe, is what happened here.
Indeed, we all agree that the trial judge improperly assumed the inquisitorial or prosecutorial role. The majority, viewing the judge’s intervention as in part designed to clarify testimony, believes that his conduct, on balance, falls on the safe side of that “brinksmanship” condemned by Judge Lowe in Bell. 48 Md.App. at 678, 429 A.2d 300. I see it otherwise.
The majority sets forth the transcript’s account of the judge’s first major intervention during the trial. That intervention occurred during the State’s direct examination of Pierre Plater, one of the principal witnesses for the prosecution.1 Majority opinion at 610-616. The first few questions and answers in this exchange may well have amounted to no more than appropriate clarification. But the judge did not stop there. Summarily overruling defense objections to his frequent leading questions, he went on to emphasize the witness’s prior testimony by leading Plater *627through an extensive recapitulation of events most of which the witness had previously recounted.
Later, the judge engaged in extensive questioning of Willie Magwood, another critical witness for the State.2 Majority opinion at 616-617. This episode occurred after both prosecution and defense counsel had indicated they were through with the witness. The judge, however, apparently unable to restrain his prosecutorial enthusiasm, and without any discernible need for clarification, examined the witness himself, again recapitulating and re-emphasizing the testimony.
On other occasions the judge sprang into action before the prosecutor had an opportunity to do so. For example, at one point the assistant State’s attorney was preparing to offer a photograph in evidence, and was about to lay a foundation. The judge shunted the prosecutor aside and laid the foundation himself. Majority opinion at 617.
In still other instances the judge took it upon himself to re-establish matters already sufficiently established. Examples of this are again seen in the examinations of Plater and Magwood. Appellant was charged with, inter alia, two counts of commission of a crime of violence by use of a handgun. Plater testified that a gun used by one of appellant’s cohorts was a handgun — a revolver with a barrel 7 to 8 inches long. Not satisfied with this, the judge enquired:
,.. Can you tell us from your knowledge whether it was a handgun or a rifle?
THE WITNESS: It was a handgun.
THE COURT: Can you tell us whether it was — was there anything else besides a handgun? Was it a shotgun?
THE WITNESS: It was a handgun.
THE COURT: Are you sure of that?
THE WITNESS: I’m positive.
*628A little later Magwood explained that the weapon was a black gun with a 4-inch barrel. The judge immediately intervened:
THE COURT: Can you tell us whether it was a rifle, shotgun, or ... handgun, from your knowledge of guns?[3]
THE WITNESS: A handgun.
There were other incidents of judicial intervention, mostly of lesser degree. It would serve no useful purpose to set them out at length. Nor is it appropriate to consider each one in isolation, and to discuss whether each particular incident, standing alone, would constitute reversible error. The record of this jury trial must be reviewed as a whole. When that is done a pattern is revealed. That pattern is frequent intervention by the judge, during examination of the two most important witnesses for the State, in order to assist the prosecution in establishing its case. On each occasion the judge brought out evidence favorable to the prosecution, either by eliciting through recapitulation the emphasis of previous testimony or by going into matters before the prosecutor had had an opportunity to do so. The judge did not offer the defense the same sort of assistance he tendered the State. During cross-examination by defense counsel, he did not intervene with supportive questions, although he did indulge in an occasional sarcastic comment, e.g.\ “I’m sure this is interesting. But....” “What is this, a memory test?”
The pattern disclosed by the whole record, it seems to me, was bound to convey to the jury the impression that the judge sided with the prosecution and against the defense. The appearance of impartiality, if not impartiality in fact, was destroyed. At the very least, I cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the impression of pro-prosecutorial bias was not conveyed to the jury. And if, as the majority *629suggests, the case against appellant was a strong one, it was made so at least in part by the trial judge’s conduct.
The essence of this case is captured in the dialogue set forth at page 19 of the majority opinion. The judge and the jury were discussing instructions. Ms. Gutierrez, the defense lawyer, objected to a procedure we all agree was in violation of Md. Rule 4-326(c). Majority opinion at 624. The judge, who had summarily overruled numerous defense objections and requests for bench conferences, asked: “How many times do you have to object, Ms. Gutierrez?” The response was: “As often as is required by my job, Your Honor.” Defense counsel was doing her job, defending her client against the combined efforts of the assistant State’s attorney and the judge. The judge was not doing his job; he was prosecuting.
I would reverse.

. Plater and Willie Magwood were the victims of the crimes with which appellant was charged. A review of the record shows that convictions would not have been possible without their testimony.

. See note 1, supra.

3. It had not been shown that Magwood had any “knowledge of guns.”