Can a judge make disparaging remarks to defense counsel?

Constitutions. [Citations.] The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a fair trial in a fair tribunal before a judge with no actual bias against the defendant or interest in the outcome of the case." (People v. Guerra (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1067, 1111, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Rundle (2008) 43 Cal.4th 76, 151.) The comments of the trial judge about witnesses, evidence and its importance or lack thereof, and indications of hostility toward or displeasure with defense counsel can all negatively impact a defendant's right to a fair trial. The jurors "rely with great confidence on the fairness of judges, and upon the correctness of their views expressed during trials." (People v. Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1233.) Indeed, jurors "are apt to give great weight to any hint from the judge as to his opinion on the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witnesses." (People v. Robinson (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 233, 237.) Judges have a "duty to maintain a strictly judicial attitude and to refrain from comment or other conduct which borders upon advocacy." (People v. Campbell (1958) 162 Cal.App.2d 776, 787.) Accordingly, a judge should not criticize the defense's theory. (People v. Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1238.) Although a trial court has the duty and discretion to control the conduct of a trial, (People v. Fudge (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1075, 1108; see Pen. Code, 1044), it " 'commits misconduct if it persistently makes discourteous and disparaging remarks to defense counsel so as to discredit the defense or create the impression it is

Page 12

allying itself with the prosecution.' " (People v. Sturm, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1233.)