[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.