Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Rule 614(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence expressly permits judges to question witnesses. Judges may do so repeatedly and aggressively to clear up confusion and manage trials or where 'testimony is inarticulately or reluctantly given.' United States v. Norris, 277 U.S. App. D.C. 262, 873 F.2d 1519, 1525-26 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (upholding judge's participation in questioning defendant, although perhaps more extensive than it should have been, because it aimed at clarifying evidence) (quoting United States v. Barbour, 137 U.S. App. D.C. 116, 420 F.2d 1319, 1321 (D.C. Cir. 1969)).

District court authority to question witnesses and manage trials, however, has limits. Because juries, not judges, decide whether witnesses are telling the truth, and because judges wield enormous influence over juries, judges may not ask questions that signal their belief or disbelief of witnesses. United States v. Wyatt, 143 U.S. App. D.C. 136, 442 F.2d 858, 859-61 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (court's questioning of defendant and his alibi witnesses damaged defendant's credibility and therefore was reversible error). Because such questions can usurp the jury's factfinding function, cast the judge in the role of advocate, and 'breach [] the atmosphere of judicial evenhandedness that should pervade the courtroom,' ...

Register or login to access full content