From a Houston case:

MR. BURKS [appellee's attorney]: I would like to offer Defendant's exhibit 1.

(At the Bench, on the record

MS. CHESLEY [the prosecutor]: Your Honor, I have no objection to him admitting this but he needs to be fully aware that the [first] paragraph states that victim [sic] is a well known member of the bloods gang and a drug dealer.

MR. BURKS: I understand that, Your Honor. I'm offering it so obviously I understand.

THE COURT: Okay. Is this part of your strategy?

MR. BURKS: Yes.

THE COURT: Okay.

MS. CHESLEY: No objection.

The police report, in its entirety, was admitted into evidence. The jury found appellee guilty of possession of a controlled substance. Prior to the start of the sentencing phase of the trial, appellee filed a motion for instructed verdict, which the trial court denied. Appellee also filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court also denied.

The trial court sentenced appellee to 10 years' incarceration in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. After sentencing, appellee filed a motion for new trial challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction. Appellant's motion for new trial also cited Article 38.17 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires the trial court to direct a verdict of acquittal when two witnesses are not called as required by law and when accomplice witnesses testimony must be corroborated by the circumstances. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 38.17 (Vernon 2005).

On May 6, 2005, the trial court granted appellee's motion for new trial. When granting the motion, the trial court struck through the phrase in the order, "the Court finds the evidence insufficient to support the verdict." On May 25, 2005, the trial court also made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law explaining that its ruling was based on ineffective assistance of counsel for introducing the police report containing the statement referring to appellee as "a documented and well know[n] member of the bloods gang and a drug dealer":

[Would someone please explain to me what more a prosecutor could have done? Note: the court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision, saying that the judge had no authority to reverse the judgment in the absence of a request by the defendant as to ineffective assistance. No doubt writ to follow.]

If the judge thought counsel was being so ineffective that he would later grant a new trial, then it appears the judge was being ineffective. Maybe someone needed to ask a bit more about the "strategy" at the time.

i thought the judge isn't allowed to comment on the evidence in a motion for new trial.

Strategery 101.

"Prior to the start of the sentencing phase of the trial, appellee filed a motion for instructed verdict, which the trial court denied. Appellee also filed a motion to reconsider the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, which the trial court also denied"

It was probably also ineffective for the defense attorney to fail to make a motion to reconsider the reconsideration of the reconsideration of the reconsideration of the initial reconsideration of the denial of his motion for a directed verdict. That was probably strategery too.