While they can go too far and, thereby, coerce verdicts, trial judges can make comments on the evidence to jurors????!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/09/08/BAVK19K6QV.DTL

And, then, there is the Ninth Circuit.

Gotta love Texas.

JAS

I don't get it. How can you "discuss evidence with the jury and encourage jurors to reach a verdict" but not "highlight[] the specific evidence the (judge) thought supported the guilty verdict"? Isn't that kind of the point of "discussing" evidence??

I'm not sure I get very much about the Californian notion of justice, and this particular practice does seem (1) an impossible line to toe for the trial courts and (2) an easy one for the appellate courts to fudge so as to get the result they want as a 13th juror!

JAS