The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Haro-Espinosa, 619 F.2d 789 (9th Cir. 1979):
Finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in questioning the expert witness on its own accord. It is entirely proper for the court to question witnesses in order to clarify questions and develop facts, so long as questions are nonprejudicial in form and tone, and the court does not become personally overinvolved. United States v. Landof, 591 F.2d 36, 39 (9th Cir. 1978). Here, the court questioned the witness only after redirect and recross-examinations had been conducted by counsel. The court's questions sought only to clarify the witness's confusing use of the terms "possibility" and "probability". In these circumstances, there was no abuse of discretion.
Instructions
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.