Trial Question - Judge's role

[CBL4]

I am wondering about the responsibilities of a judge in a case where the defendant has asked for a judge trial instead of a jury trial. If a judge has doubt is he allowed to do his own investigation. Specifically, is he allowed to reconvene the court room at the crime scene after the defense has made allegation about the scene?

Case Synopsis:
A man gets robbed while at home. After the robbers leave, the man gets his gun, runs out of his and shoots at the defendant who is running away. The robbery victim says he chased the defendant around the right side of the building. The defendant claims he was working on a car in the street when a screaming man shot him in the arm and he ran around the left side of the building. (The side of building matters because it would indicate where the defendant started from.) The defendant lost his shoe while climbing a fence around the building.

Just before the trial ends, the defense lawyer looks at the picture of the shoe and realizes that it was clearly found next to a drain pipe. The only drain pipe in the other crime scene photos is on the left side of the house which implies the defendant is truthful and the witness is mistaken.

The argument phase of the trial end and the photos give reasonable doubt. Instead of acquitting the defendant, the judge decides to reconvene court at the crime scene to see if there is a drain pipe on the right side of the building.

Is this proper behavior for a judge? At this point, the police and prosecutor have failed to make their case and it seems to me the defendant should go free. The judge is not supposed to be an investigator.

BTW, the crime scene backs up the defendant’s story and he is found not guilty.

CBL

 

[drkitten]

I am wondering about the responsibilities of a judge in a case where the defendant has asked for a judge trial instead of a jury trial. If a judge has doubt is he allowed to do his own investigation. Specifically, is he allowed to reconvene the court room at the crime scene after the defense has made allegation about the scene?

The judge is not typically allowed to reconvene the court room anywhere other than a court room.

I can't help but wonder why you are wondering about such a far-fetched scenario. In most jurisdictions, if the judge even tried something like the situation you describe, the appelate court would immediately order the defendant released and the case dismissed with prejudice for misconduct.

 

[CBL4]

Originally posted by new drkitten
I can't help but wonder why you are wondering about such a far-fetched scenario. In most jurisdictions, if the judge even tried something like the situation you describe, the appelate court would immediately order the defendant released and the case dismissed with prejudice for misconduct.

The case is described in the book Courtroom 302 by Steve Bogira but he does not bring up my question. In fact, he seems to have respect for the judge for trying to find the truth in this particular case even though the book in general is critical of the court system. Apparently this judge takes trials on "field trips" a few times a year. I can understand it while confusing evidence is being presented but in this case, when the arguments ended, there was reasonable doubt.

My initial reaction was the same as your but since I am unfamilar with law, I thought it made sense to ask.

Thanks,

CBL

 

[Random]

If the photographs didn’t show the right side of the building in its entirety, then a brief field trip might be in order if both sides are saying something different about whether or not there is another drainpipe. It’s also possible that the judge wished to see the scene for a variety of other reasons. If the defendant has given up his right to trial by jury and left it to the judge, then he will be the one to determine if there is reasonable doubt, nobody else.

I guess the question is, should a judge go out of his way to determine the facts of a case he is presiding over, or just depend on what is presented by the prosecution and the defense?

My common sense tells me yes, but that is largely because I believe that trials should be a determination of what happened, with the benefit of the doubt going to the defendant. We live in the era of Mapp vs. Ohio (arguably the stupidest court ruling since the dawn of time) however, so as a practical matter there could be all sorts of conflicts. A judge ruling on the admissibility of his own evidence could be put into a very awkward situation.

 

[drkitten]

We live in the era of Mapp vs. Ohio (arguably the stupidest court ruling since the dawn of time) however, so as a practical matter there could be all sorts of conflicts.

How is Mapp vs. Ohio a stupid court ruling?