CC 101 admonishes the jurors as follows:
Do not take anything I say or do during the trial as an indication of what I think about the facts, the witnesses, or what your verdict should be.
However, such admonitions are not always sufficient to cure judicial misconduct. For example, in People v. Nieves (May 3, 2021, S092410) [pp. 138] the CSC concluded that judicial misconduct required reversal of the death penalty sentence because:
…[T]he trial judge’s conspicuous disdain for defense counsel and witnesses, and his repeated references to their improper or untrustworthy conduct, lent credence to the prosecution’s argument that defendant was manipulative and deceitful. These were the very characteristics the prosecution highlighted to justify the death penalty. The trial judge effectively threw “the weight of his judicial position” (Mahoney, supra, 201 Cal. at p. 627) behind the prosecution’s case and erroneously excluded relevant and potentially beneficial mitigating evidence, thus “undermin[ing] the defense theory of the case.” (Sturm, at p. 1243).
See also: F 17.30 – Jury Not To Take Cue From Judge
