## Facts

- Quercia was tried in federal district court for violations of the Federal Narcotics Act (then codified at 26 U.S.C. §§ 692, 705).
- The prosecution relied primarily on testimony from federal agents.
- Quercia testified and generally denied the charges; his testimony was not reproduced in the record.
- During jury instructions, the trial judge told the jury he would give his view of Quercia’s testimony and remarked that wiping one’s hands while testifying was “almost always an indication of lying.”
- The judge further stated that “every single word” Quercia said, except where it agreed with the government’s testimony, was a lie.
- The judge added that his opinion was not binding on the jury and that if the jury disagreed, it should acquit.
- Quercia timely excepted to the challenged portion of the charge.
- Quercia was convicted; the First Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal trial judge’s common-law authority to comment on evidence permits stating a demeanor-based “fact” not in the record and declaring the defendant’s testimony entirely false.
2. Whether such comments constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal, notwithstanding an instruction that the jury is not bound by the judge’s opinions.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment affirming the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The Court held that while a federal judge may comment on evidence, the challenged remarks exceeded permissible bounds.
- The judge improperly added extrarecord matter by asserting, as a “fact,” that hand-wiping is “almost always” a sign of lying.
- The categorical denunciation of the defendant’s testimony as lies was unfairly hostile and likely to mislead the jury.
- The limiting instruction that the jury could disregard the judge’s opinion did not cure the resulting prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- In federal jury trials, a judge may explain and comment on evidence and may express views about facts, so long as the jury is clearly told that factfinding remains exclusively its task.
- The power to comment does not permit the judge to distort or add to the evidence, or to present personal theories as evidentiary “facts.”
- Because of the judge’s influence on jurors, the judge must be fair, avoid misleading statements, and avoid deductions not warranted by the trial evidence.
- In a criminal case, hostile judicial commentary cannot be allowed to nullify the accused’s privilege to testify; categorical condemnation based on extrarecord assertions may require reversal.

## Conclusion

The Court reversed because the trial judge’s comments went beyond fair commentary by injecting an unsupported demeanor rule and broadly branding the defendant’s testimony as lies, creating prejudice that a standard nonbinding-opinion instruction could not neutralize.


Quercia v. United States, 289 U.S. 466 (1933)