Judge who teared up during child abuse testimony does not warrant new trial, appeals court says
Even though a Colorado judge teared up during a child abuse victim’s testimony, an appeals court ruled it was not enough to warrant a new trial.
A Colorado judge who teared up during a child abuse victim’s testimony was not enough to warrant a new trial, an appeals court has ruled.
A three-judge Court of Appeals panel ruled that defendant Philip Morgan was not harmed by the visible emotional reaction of District Court Judge Ryan Stuart during the trial in 2022, reports Colorado Politics.
After the 12-year-old victim began testifying, there was a break in the proceedings when a defense attorney said he saw Stuart “tearing up” while the child testified. The lawyer was concerned that Stuart’s reaction inappropriately signaled that he found the victim credible, the report said.
The next day, Stuart said he allowed his emotions to become temporarily observable. “Any human being with any emotion or empathy feels emotion just hearing that testimony, regardless of whether you think it was true or not true,” he said. “Now, I’m not saying that I should have displayed any emotion. I should not have. That was improper. It was certainly not intentional, and it came quickly and surprised me when it happened. But to believe that a juror
Stuart denied a motion for a mistrial and jurors convicted Morgan on two counts of sexual assault against a child. He was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison, according to Colorado Politics.
Writing in the appeals court opinion, Judge Stephanie Dunn said, “None of this is to suggest that we are unconcerned about this record. Courts must be fair and impartial. And while no one is impervious to emotion, courts must maintain decorum and emotional control. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen. More commonly, emotions spill out in intemperate or ill-advised comments, leading to claims of bias and prejudice.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
