This Article examines the often seen and routinely unchallenged practice of judicial questioning. Part I covers the fundamental concept of judicial impartiality and the power of judges to question witnesses. Part II illustrates varied examples from both civil and criminal trials where judges crossed (or may have crossed) the line in questioning witnesses. Part III considers what trial counsel should do in the face of improper judicial questioning. Part IV explains how the failure to object to questioning significantly diminishes the likelihood of success on appeal. In the Conclusion, the Authors urge counsel to object whenever a judge’s questions appear likely to endanger their clients’ rights.
Matthew E. Christoph and Benjamin K. Golden, YOU’RE OBJECTING TO ME?: CHALLENGING JUDICIAL QUESTIONING, 40 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 43 (2018), http://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/lawreview/vol40/iss1/3