## Facts

- Louisville, Kentucky police executed a search warrant at an apartment occupied by Darryl Gordon Hickman and Fred McArthur Head.
- Officers found a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, a .32-caliber revolver, and roughly four pounds of marijuana in the apartment.
- Hickman and Head were arrested shortly after the search when they returned to the apartment.
- Head’s simple-possession charge also involved a small quantity of marijuana allegedly dropped just before his arrest.
- The case turned largely on whether defendants constructively possessed the weapons and drugs found in the jointly occupied apartment.
- A government chemist identified the seized substance as marijuana; after defense cross-examination, the trial judge extensively questioned the chemist in a manner that bolstered the testimony.
- In a one-day trial, the judge repeatedly interjected—over 250 times—through questions and comments before the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s pervasive questioning and commentary—particularly rehabilitation of a key government witness—denied defendants a fair trial and constituted plain error warranting reversal despite limited objections.
2. Whether simultaneous possession of multiple firearms by a convicted felon supports multiple counts under 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1).
3. Whether other claimed errors (including admission of a letter seized during the search) required relief.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial judge’s repeated, prosecution-favoring interventions cumulatively deprived defendants of a fair trial and amounted to plain error.
- The court accepted the government’s concession that separate firearm counts for simultaneous possession of the shotgun and revolver were improper under circuit precedent.
- The court rejected defendants’ sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges as meritless.
- The court declined to decide the letter-seizure issue in light of the reversal and remand.

## Legal Principles

- A federal trial judge may question witnesses to clarify testimony, but must remain impartial and avoid conduct that reasonably appears to the jury as advocacy for one side.
- Under plain-error review, the cumulative effect of pervasive judicial intervention can require reversal when it undermines the fairness and integrity of the proceedings, even without contemporaneous objections to each instance.
- Simultaneous possession of multiple firearms by a convicted felon constitutes a single offense under 18 U.S.C. app. § 1202(a)(1), not multiple counts.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district judge’s extraordinary and one-sided participation before the jury—illustrated by extensive rehabilitation of the government’s chemist and frequent interjections—created plain error and denied a fair trial; it also confirmed that simultaneous possession of more than one firearm supports only one § 1202(a)(1) offense.


United States v. Hickman, 592 F.2d 931 (6th Cir. 1979)