judicial interference

While watching cases on trial over the past few months - Peter and I have both observed that the judges were much more "involved" than we expected them to be. For whatever reason - I hadn't expected judges to ask questions of witnesses - and it seems to vary - but it does not appear to be uncommon in 100/111 Center Street.

Last week, we watched a reckless assault case in Supreme Court. I noticed again that the judge was asking a lot of clarifying questions of the witness. He was rephrasing questions for the prosecutor and he was asking his own. Now, this was during a very confusing direct examination of a traffic cop about where cars were located in an intersection - and his questions were helpful. But what struck me was that it came from the judge. It made us wonder - how much interference is too much?

And lo and behold - Peter found this article in the NY Law Journal: (registration required for full access)

"In the present case, the unanimous panel ruled that Justice Arlene R. Silverman's (See Profile) "almost continuous interference" during both the defense's and the prosecution's questioning constituted reversible error, requiring the panel to throw out a guilty verdict in a felony drug-possession trial.

"While we recognize that the dynamics of a criminal trial may result in some intervention by the trial judge in the examination of witnesses, the cumulative effect of the court's extraordinarily incessant interference in this case was to obstruct counsel's effort to present a defense for his client," the panel held in its unsigned opinion, People v. Thorpe, 1406. "This is simply unacceptable."

Apparently, that's too much.