-16-
OPINION
1. Conduct of the Trial
Petitioner argues that the trial was conducted improperly.
First, petitioner argues, the Court violated its constitutional
rights by improperly questioning its witnesses and by directing
its witness, Ms. Odell, not to discuss her testimony with anyone
during a recess. Petitioner also claims a violation of its
constitutional rights by virtue of the fact that the Court
declined to consider before proceeding to trial petitioner’s
motion in limine to place the burden of proof on respondent. The
Court informed the parties at trial that we were taking
petitioner’s motion under advisement and directed petitioner to
proceed with its case-in-chief as if it had the burden of proof.
Petitioner asserts that respondent bears the burden of proof and
should have been required by the Court to present his case-in-
chief before petitioner presented its case-in-chief. According
to petitioner, respondent was required to go first in that:
(1) The notice of determination is arbitrary and invalid in that
it neither explains nor references the facts underlying
respondent’s determination and (2) section 7491 by its terms
places the burden of proof upon respondent.
a. Constitutional Claims
It is deeply ingrained in judicial jurisprudence that the
presiding judge is “the governor of the trial for the purpose of
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011