The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the questioning of witnesses by the trial judge and held that in this instance the court did not abuse its discretion. In Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200 (Third Circuit 2008) plaintiff sued for damages arising out of the attack on the MOVE house in Philadelphia. The defendants appealed from a judgment for the plaintiffs and among other things argued that the trial judge’s question showed hostility toward the defendants and suggested to the jury in answer to an ultimate issue before them. The trial judge died after the jury verdict and the newly assigned judge denied defendants motion for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court that the trial judge’s questioning did not affect the outcome and affirmed the denial of a new trial on that ground. The reasoning of the Court of Appeals is instructive as to the scope of questioning permitted to the trial judge.
The court said: “We review for abuse of discretion. Adedoyin, 369F.3d at 342 (citing Fed.R.Evid. 614(b)). Evidence Rule 614(b) provides that the court may interrogate witnesses. Id. This has been an important and longstanding practice on the part of trial judges and should not be discouraged. See Riley v. Goodman, 315 F.2d 232, 234 (3d Cir. 1963) (“We have long abandoned the adversary system of litigation which regards opposing lawyers as players and the judge as a mere umpire whose only duty is to determine whether infractions of the rules of the game have been committed.”). Of course, a judge must not “abandon his [or her] proper role and assume that to an advocate..” United States v. Green, 544 F.2d 138, 147 (3d Cir. 1976). But the abuse of discretion standard is a deferential one and in order to meet the standard the conduct of a trial judge must be “inimical and partisan, clearly evident and prejudicial.” Riley, 315 F.2d at 235. In making this determination, “[e]ach case must be viewed in its own setting.” Id. At 234.” (523 F.3d at 222-3)