California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Cox, 259 Cal.App.2d 653, 66 Cal.Rptr. 576 (Cal. App. 1968):
Defendant was not prejudiced by the judge's remark. The proper procedure for defense counsel in such circumstances is to make an objection to the testimony and move for a continuance. (See People v. Krupnick, supra (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 755, 764, 332 P.2d 720, and People v. Coe, supra (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 786, 794, 342 P.2d 43.) There is nothing in the judge's remark that should have deterred defendant from requesting a continuance at that time, and the remark did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
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.