Commenting on Evidence

In the federal courts and in many states, judges are permitted to comment to the jury on the evidence at any time,{footnote}United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 78 L.Ed. 381, 54 S.Ct. 223 (1933).{/footnote} provided that their comments are fair based on the evidence and arguments of the parties,{footnote}United States v. Tourine, 428 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1970); Seidman v. Fishburne-Hudgins Educational Foundation, 724 F.2d 413 (4th Cir. 1984); Ray v. United States, 367 F.2d 258 (8th Cir. 1966).{/footnote} and do not unfairly prejudice a party.{footnote}McGlothan v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 170 F.2d 121 (3d Cir. 1948); United States v. Chibbaro, 361 F.2d 121 (3d Cir. 1948).{/footnote}  The court must instruct the jury, however, that the court’c comments have no binding effect upon the jury.{footnote}Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 77 L.Ed. 1321, 53 S.Ct. 698 (1933); Government of Virgin Islands v. Rivera, 439 F.2d 1126 (3d Cir. 1971); United States v. Lee, 422 F.2d 1049 (5th Cir. 1970); White v. Norwalk, 900 F.2d 1421 (9th Cir. 1990).{/footnote}  Federal courts generally permit such comments by the court at the end of the trial.{footnote}Capital Traction Co. v. Hof, 174 U.S. 1 (1899).{/footnote}

It is rarely appropriate for the Court to comment on the guilt of a criminal accused,{footnote}United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 78 L.Ed. 381, 54 S.Ct. 223 (1933).

Cf. Billeci v. United States, 184 F.2d 394, 87 App. D.C. 274 (1950)(judge may not express opinion on guilt or innocence).{/footnote} or to state that the defendant is not credible.{footnote}United States v. Anton, 597 F.2d 371 (3d Cir. 1979).{/footnote}

Power to Call Court’s Own Witnesses

The trial judge is generally permitted to call a witness to testify in a case,{footnote}Smith v. United States, 331 F.2d 265 (8th Cir. 1964); Estrelle-Ortega v. United States, 423 F.2d 509 (9th Cir. 1970); 53 ALR Fed 498.

But see Crespo v. John Hancock, 41 Ill. App. 3d 506, 354 N.E.2d 381 (1st Dist. 1976)(power of court to call own witnesses rarely invoked, and generally not appropriate, particularly in jury trials).

Check 67 ALR2d 538 (non-experts called in criminal cases as reversible error).{/footnote} and may question that witness just as any other witness would be questioned.{footnote}FRE 614; Moore v. United States, 598 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1979); Cal. § 775.{/footnote}  (Typically the Court might call its own expert witness to advise the trier of fact as to a technical matter in dispute.{footnote}FRE 706; Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 532 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1976).{/footnote})  All parties are allowed to cross-examine the court’s witnesses.{footnote}FRE 614(a); Litsinger v. United States, 44 F.2d 45 (7th Cir. 1930).{/footnote}

Questioning Witnesses Generally

Judges may question witnesses{footnote}United States v. Cornfeld, 563 F.2d 967 (9th Cir. 1977); National Mut. Casualty Co. v. Eisenhower, 116 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1940); 6 ALR4th 951.{/footnote} but this is generally disfavored.{footnote}United States v. Block, 755 F.2d 770 (11th Cir. 1985); People v. Murray, 194 Ill. App. 3d 653, 551 N.E.2d 283 (1st Dist. 1990).{/footnote}  The Court may use leading questions (see LEADING).  The Court may not unfairly prejudice a party by the way in which it examines a witness,{footnote}United States v. Mazzilli, 848 F.2d 384 (2d Cir. 1988)(reversing conviction based on prejudicial questioning of defendant); United States v. Grunberger, 431 F.2d 1062 (2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768 (4th Cir. 1983); United States v. Esse, 468 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Lewis, 338 F.2d 137 (6th Cir. 1964).{/footnote} and may not intimidate a witness.{footnote}United States v. Lattimer, 548 F.2d 311 (10th Cir. 1977).{/footnote}  Parties may object during the court’s examination of a witness or at the next opportunity outside the jury’s presence.{footnote}FRE 614(c).{/footnote} 

As Witnesses

In federal court, a trial judge may not testify in a case he is presiding over.{footnote} [2442]  FRE 605; United States v. Alberico, 453 F.Supp. 178 (D. Colo. 1977).{/footnote}  Some federal courts have extended this rule to law clerk.{footnote}Kennedy v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 551 F.2d 593 (5th Cir. 1977); Price Bros. Co. v. Philadelphia Great Corp., 629 F.2d 444 (6th Cir. 1980).{/footnote}  State courts are less absolute, most leaving it to the trial judge’s discretion to weigh the need for the judge’s testimony against the possible prejudice.{footnote} [2444]  157 A.L.R. 311 Wigmore sec. 1909.{/footnote}  In other states, the trial judge is barred from testifying if either party objects.{footnote} [2445]  Cal. sec. 703 (objecting party entitled to mistrial).{/footnote}