Alamin

dissenting.

In my view, the manner and substance of the district court’s questioning of defense witnesses requires reversal. It is difficult for me to understand how my able colleagues could have concluded, after reading the trial transcript, that the district court’s questioning of those witnesses did not “eonvey[ ] the appearance of advocacy or partiality.” Indeed, the majority acknowledges that the judge questioned 12 of the 16 witnesses for the defense and none of the witnesses for the prosecution, and that the court’s questioning of at least four defense witnesses “seemed designed to undermine the witnesses’ credibility.” One of those four was Alamin himself. After Alamin said that he was an accountant, the district court asked him the utterly irrelevant, apparently rhetorical, question, “Do you know that an accountant has to be accurate in what he puts down in the books of any person?” Such a question could have had no purpose other than to signal to the jury the court’s belief that Alamin was less than truthful. The court’s equally irrelevant questioning as to the place of residence of one of Alamin’s children, who was being raised by grandparents, also suggested strongly…

MEMORANDUM *

Appellant Nur Alamin appeals his conviction on two counts of involuntary servitude, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584 , two counts of harboring and concealing and illegal alien, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(l)(A)(III), and one count of conspiracy to commit involuntary servitude and to harbor and conceal an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 ,1584 and 8 U.S.C. § 1324 (a)(l)(III). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The relevant facts are known to the parties and are discussed here briefly and only as necessary.

Alamin contends that the district court violated his due process right to an impartial judge when the court improperly examined 12 out of 16 defense witnesses, while examining none of the government’s witnesses. We review the court’s examination of witnesses for abuse of discretion. United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 537 (9th Cir.1988).

“A trial judge is more than an umpire, and may participate in the examination of witnesses to clarify evidence, confine counsel to evidentiary rulings, ensure the orderly presentation of evidence, and prevent undue repetition.” Id. A trial judge’s participation in trial…