Is a judge's examination of certain witnesses' testimony prejudicial or prejudicial?

[262 Cal.App.2d 815] Appellants next contend that the court's examination of certain witnesses and its comments concerning the credibility of selected witnesses' testimony constituted prejudicial misconduct depriving appellants of a fair trial. It is, however, well established in the decisions of this state, that the trial judge may make fair comment on the evidence. 'It seems clear from the use of the word 'comment' in section 19 of article VI (of the Constitution) that a trial judge is empowered to do more than merely summarize the evidence and that he may analyze the testimony critically, giving his opinions for the guidance of the jury.' (People v. Friend, 50 Cal.2d 570, 576, 327 P.2d 97, 100.)

'A judge's power to comment on the evidence, of course, is not unlimited. (Citations.) He may not withdraw material evidence from the jury's consideration or distort the testimony, and his comments should be temperately and fairly made, rather than being argumentative or contentious to a degree amounting to partisan advocacy. The jury, as required by the constitutional provision, must remain as the exclusive arbiter of questions of fact and the credibility of witnesses, and the judge should make clear that his views are not binding but advisory only.' (People v. Friend, supra, pp. 577--578, 327 P.2d p. 101.) We observe that the court in the present case fully and conscientiously explained its limitations and admonished the jury concerning its own responsibility to make an independent examination of the evidence and a final decision concerning the facts and the proper inferences to be made therefrom. ¹ The court's comments

Page 152