Is a state trial judge's remark about the death penalty prejudiced the sentencing of a convicted murderer?

We next consider Olds's contention that the state trial judge's remark about the death penalty at sentencing revealed undue prejudice that violated his right to due process. A trial judge's impartiality cannot be attacked because of remarks which are based upon information and beliefs acquired while acting in his or her judicial capacity. United States v. Monaco, 852 F.2d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 109 S.Ct. 864 (1989). Our review of the sentencing hearing reveals that the trial judge's statement was made in response to a comment by Olds, and that the judge's statement was based upon information the judge received while acting in his judicial capacity. The judge's remark could not have prejudiced the verdict or the sentence. The jury had already found Olds guilty, and the judge imposed the mandatory sentence for murder under Oregon law. "[The statement] simply reflect[s] that the judge was appropriately outraged at the enormity of the crime that had taken place...." Id. Olds was not denied due process by the remark.