The ABA Journal shows how a New York judge [Arlene Silverman]’s ‘incessant’ questions interfered with a trial and resulted in reversal.
Debra Cassens Weiss reports (excerpt):
“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 court said in its opinion.