## Facts

- A woman robbed a Tri City National Bank branch in Brown Deer, Wisconsin, using a demand note and escaped with $1,212.
- Witnesses saw the robber flee to a parking lot and enter a black car driven by a man, who then drove away.
- About an hour later, Henry L. Martin went to police claiming a woman had jumped into his car and forced him to drive away, framing it as a carjacking to explain any link to the getaway car.
- Police later arrested Martin and Lisa McElwee together after they bought heroin; McElwee admitted she committed the robbery and said Martin drove the getaway car.
- Martin denied McElwee was the robber, asserting the robber was a different woman who hijacked his car.
- Before trial, Martin obtained appointed counsel by submitting a sworn financial affidavit claiming indigency.
- At trial, Martin testified he was financially secure to argue he lacked a motive to participate in the robbery; the prosecution cross-examined him about the inconsistency.
- The trial judge questioned Martin before the jury to clarify his unclear answers about his finances and the discrepancy with his indigency affidavit, referencing concern for the integrity of the appointed-counsel program.
- The judge instructed the jury not to draw any inference from the judge’s questioning.
- Martin moved for a mistrial, arguing the judge’s questioning and tone signaled disbelief and aligned the court with the prosecution; the district court denied the motion, and Martin was convicted of aiding and abetting bank robbery.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s questioning of Martin before the jury about inconsistencies between his indigency affidavit and claimed financial security improperly suggested the judge believed Martin was lying and denied Martin a fair trial.
2. Whether the judge’s intervention effectively made the court an advocate for the prosecution in violation of due process.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the judge’s questioning was permissible clarification of ambiguous testimony and did not abandon judicial neutrality.
- The court concluded the questioning did not pervade the trial or create an appearance of partiality that rendered the trial fundamentally unfair.
- Any potential prejudice was mitigated by the jury instruction, the judge’s questioning of other witnesses, and the strength of the evidence against Martin.

## Legal Principles

- A trial judge may question witnesses to clarify testimony, correct misstatements, and develop facts needed for rulings, but must not assume the role of an advocate.
- Judicial questioning violates due process only when, in context, it creates an appearance of partiality or so infects the proceedings with unfairness that the conviction is a denial of due process.
- The constitutional concern is not that questioning may elicit damaging facts, but whether the judge’s conduct is so prejudicial that it denies a fair (not perfect) trial.
- Curative instructions and the overall context of the proceedings are relevant to whether any judicial intervention likely influenced the jury improperly.

## Conclusion

The court held that the trial judge’s limited, clarifying questions about Martin’s financial claims—paired with a cautionary instruction and evaluated in the context of the entire trial—did not signal judicial bias or advocacy for the prosecution and therefore did not violate due process.


United States v. Martin, 189 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 1999)