[csydas]

The above poster may have overstated it slightly; the judge's response had a bit more to it that makes it less of a slap.

"Okay. The public will read what you just said.

I'm sorry, but the public's right to know what goes on in the federal courts is more important than the newspapers beating up on you in the press."

Which is absolutely true, and more than anything you can read it as cautionary from the judge. The Lawyer is trying really hard to draw attention away from what's going on and the Judge is outright saying the freedom of press and right of the public to know is more important than the case getting slammed.

It's not bias, and it's really not unprofessional either. Most of the transcripts I've taken the time to read, Judges usually do have a slight sarcastic side to them when Lawyers or participants in the court do unusual or silly things, but it's always framed around the work.

Sometimes judges lose it - true, but that's why why we have the stenographers.

In this case, the lawyer was trying to make a really silly play to garner sympathy for their client, and the judge called them out on in.

[sangnoir]

> Sometimes judges lose it - true, but that's why why we have the stenographers.

If you have time to kill, an outrageously funny example of a judge losing it is "State of Georgia vs. Rick Allen"[1]. If you prefer watching a video to reading a court transcript, there is a word-for-word Rick & Morty reenactment on YouTube[2]

1. http://legal.blog.ajc.com/2016/06/23/georgia-judge-loses-it-...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTWdP5DMdsM

[jacquesm]

That is totally incredible. But apparently real. I'm surprised the judge got off so lightly.

[rdtsc]

Agree that it was a ridiculous request by the lawyers, ... surely they've heard of the Streisand effect.

But I think GP wanted to say that even if we agree with what the judge said, it might benefit the defendant on the appeal if they can show this judge was not impartial in some way.

Wonder if this is ever used as a technique - if judges are not impartial, then bait them into showing it on the record so to speak.

[rayiner]

Accusing a judge of not being impartial is a non-starter, but improper comments can be a basis for a larger "abuse of discretion" argument. The idea is that a discretionary decision can be overturned on appeal if it's not within the range of reasonable decisions in that situation. So if the judge said "well that's a stupid argument," at the hearing before the lawyer had presented, and the argument was actually good, you might throw that quote in from the transcript to argue that the judge glossed over the merits of your argument instead of giving it serious consideration. Not "she's biased" but "she just didn't give this enough thought."

Of course you'd never piss off the judge hoping to get a negative reaction. The appeal is 95% decided on the basis of the judge's written opinion, and your appellate briefs. If the judge ignored a good argument you made, it'll be apparent. And if it's a close call, the appellate court will show deference to the judge.

[rdtsc]

Makes sense, thank you for explaining.

[obmelvin]

I don't get how it is impartial. The fact is that the public can read it. It's not his opinion.

[rdtsc]

I didn't say he was, but he might appear to be as far as others would be concerned.