Supreme Court of Minnesota Finds Less Risk of Prejudice With Judicial Interrogation at a Bench Trial

Similar to its federal counterpart, Minnesota Rule of Evidence 614(b) states that “[t]he court may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party.” The Supreme Court of Minnesota has found that “courts ordinarily should exercise that authority ‘with great caution, particularly when the credibility of [a] key witness[] is at issue.’” State ex rel. Hastings v. Denny, 296 N.W.2d 378, 379 (Minn. 1980). But does this analysis change for a bench trial vs. a jury trial?

In State v. Cardinale, 2020 WL 7019399 (Minn.App. 2020), David Cardinale had a probation revocation hearing before a judge who “extensively question[ed] one of the state’s witnesses.” This questioning formed the basis of Cardinale’s appeal, with the Court of Appeals of Minnesota noting the “with great power comes great responsibility” language from above. But the court then added that 

the Minnesota Supreme Court has recognized that the risk of unfair prejudice significantly diminishes when the court is the fact-finder. State v. Burrell, 772 N.W.2d 459, 467 (Minn. 2009) (explaining that the “risk of unfair prejudice…is reduced because there is comparatively less risk that the district court judge, as compared to a jury of laypersons, would use the evidence for an improper purpose or have his [or her] sense of reason overcome by emotion”).

Overall, the court found 

no concerns with the inquiry by the district court. Here, the judge questioned Cardinale’s probation officer to clarify several details of the officer’s testimony under direct examination. Cardinale does not explain how such questioning amounts to impermissible bias, and we see nothing improper about such efforts to clarify the record. Cardinale complains that the judge did not similarly “assist the defense,” but because Cardinale presented no witnesses of his own, there was no need or opportunity for the district court to clarify any testimony.

-CM