-17-
assuring its proper conduct”, Logue v. Dore, 103 F.3d 1040, 1045
(1st Cir. 1997); see also Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80,
86-87 (1976); United States v. Scholl, 166 F.3d 964, 977 (9th
Cir. 1999), and may both question witnesses and comment upon the
evidence, Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466, 469 (1933);
United States v. Paiva, 892 F.2d 148, 159 (1st Cir. 1989); United
States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 537 (9th Cir. 1988). See
generally Fed. R. Evid. 614(b). Of course, a judge’s
participation must be tailored so as not to advocate or otherwise
to advantage or disadvantage a party unfairly. See Quercia v.
United States, supra at 470; United States v. Paiva, supra at
159; see also Notes of the Advisory Committee on Fed. R. Evid.
614(b), 28 U.S.C. App. 891 (2000). It is permissible for a judge
to instruct a witness not to discuss his or her testimony with
third parties until the end of the testimony. Perry v. Leeke,
488 U.S. 272, 281, 282 (1989) (“when a defendant becomes a
witness, he has no constitutional right to consult with his
lawyer while he is testifying”).
Following our careful review of the record, we reject
petitioner’s claim that the Court’s conduct of the trial violated
its constitutional rights. The Court’s questioning of witnesses
was narrowly tailored to clarify their vague and confusing
answers so as to further our decisionmaking process. The Court
properly instructed Ms. Odell not to discuss her testimony with
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011