A trial judge who intervenes extensively during the examination and cross-examination of witnesses in a criminal jury trial, going beyond clarifying ambiguities to effectively taking over the role of counsel, asking questions suggesting incredulity of the accused's answers, and introducing topics not raised by counsel, renders the trial unfair regardless of the strength of the prosecution case. A direction to the jury to disregard any impression of judicial opinion is insufficient to cure such unfairness, and partial acquittals do not demonstrate jury independence from judicial influence.
The full text is available to signed-in members.