## Facts

- A hashish-smuggling plan involved two vessels off the New Jersey coast: the Falcon (carrying hashish) and the Tanqueray (a “safe boat” transporting personnel to count bales and return to shore separately).
- On October 9, 1981, the off-loading proceeded with Ballouz on the Falcon and Beaty on the Tanqueray, according to government witnesses.
- The operation failed due to rough weather and overloading; after the crew transferred to the Tanqueray, the Falcon sank with the hashish.
- The government presented evidence that Beaty later participated in two unsuccessful salvage attempts for the lost hashish.
- At trial, Beaty offered no evidence; Ballouz asserted an alibi defense relying on defense witness testimony.
- Both defendants were convicted of multiple drug offenses, including conspiracy to import and distribute hashish.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s conduct, including witness questioning and treatment of counsel, deprived Beaty of a fair trial.
2. Whether the trial judge’s extended hostile questioning of Ballouz’s alibi witnesses deprived Ballouz of a fair trial.
3. Whether alleged prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced either defendant so as to require reversal.

## Decision

- The court affirmed Beaty’s conviction, concluding the trial judge’s conduct, though sometimes improper, did not cause prejudicial error in light of the record as a whole.
- The court reversed Ballouz’s conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the judge’s hostile questioning of key defense witnesses was prejudicial given the centrality of credibility to the alibi defense.
- The court rejected Beaty’s prosecutorial-misconduct claim, finding any errors nonprejudicial.

## Legal Principles

- A trial judge’s intervention (including questioning witnesses) warrants reversal only if, viewed in context and cumulatively, it prejudices the defendant’s right to a fair trial.
- Judicial remarks or reprimands occurring outside the jury’s presence generally lessen the risk of unfair prejudice.
- A judge’s questioning that functions as adversarial cross-examination and signals disbelief of key defense witnesses can deny a fair trial, especially where the case turns on witness credibility and the evidence is not overwhelming.
- Alleged prosecutorial misconduct requires a prejudice showing; curative instructions and the strength of the evidence may render misconduct harmless.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that judicial conduct must be assessed for actual prejudice in context: it was harmless as to Beaty given the overall record and strength of proof, but it required a new trial for Ballouz because hostile judicial questioning undercut a credibility-dependent alibi defense in a closer case.


United States v. Beaty, 722 F.2d 1090 (3d Cir. 1983)