## Facts

- Joseph Omotunde Filani, a lawful permanent resident, returned to the United States through John F. Kennedy International Airport on November 30, 1993, after traveling from Nigeria via Paris.
- During a routine Customs inspection, an inspector examined a briefcase agents understood to be associated with Filani; although empty, it felt unusually heavy.
- The inspector pierced the lining and discovered concealed bags of white powder that field-tested positive for heroin; Filani was arrested.
- Filani was charged with (1) importing heroin and (2) possessing heroin with intent to distribute.
- At a two-day jury trial, the government presented testimony from the inspecting customs officer, a detective who later questioned Filani, and an expert on heroin.
- Filani testified as the sole defense witness, admitting possession of the briefcase but denying ownership; he claimed he had helped an elderly couple with their bags and brought the attaché case to the inspector only because the inspector directed him to do so.
- Throughout the trial—especially during Filani’s testimony—the trial judge frequently interrupted to question witnesses, with many interventions reflecting skepticism toward Filani’s account and at times becoming argumentative.
- The jury convicted Filani on both counts, and the district court imposed a ten-year prison sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s frequent, skeptical, and sometimes argumentative questioning and comments—particularly toward the defendant while testifying—crossed from permissible clarification into partiality that improperly influenced the jury.
2. Whether the cumulative effect of the judge’s interventions deprived the defendant of a fair trial and an impartial tribunal.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the trial judge’s conduct, viewed as a whole, exceeded permissible judicial questioning and compromised the appearance and reality of neutrality before the jury.
- The court emphasized that the imbalance and tone of the judge’s interventions risked signaling disbelief in the defendant and alignment with the prosecution, in a case substantially dependent on credibility determinations.

## Legal Principles

- A federal trial judge may question witnesses to clarify evidence and manage proceedings, but must not question in a manner that conveys disbelief in a defendant’s testimony or suggests the judge’s view of guilt.
- Appellate review considers the entire record; even if particular questions might be defensible in isolation, their cumulative impact can deny a fair trial.
- When a defendant testifies, judicial questioning that is aggressive, sarcastic, or adversarial can improperly impair the jury’s independent credibility assessment and prejudice the defense.
- The right to a fair trial includes both actual fairness and the appearance of fairness; jurors may give substantial weight to signals from the court.

## Conclusion

Because the trial judge’s repeated, one-sided, skeptical interventions—especially during the defendant’s testimony—undermined judicial neutrality and likely influenced the jury’s credibility assessment, the appellate court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial.


United States v. Filani, 74 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 1996)