State v. Peter O’Brien (A-89-08)
12-29-09
Defendant was entitled to face a single adversary, the
State. He should not have had to bear the
consequences of a judge who appeared to disbelieve him
and his expert witness, revealed that disbelief to the
jury, and supported a witness adverse to him. Because
that conduct was clearly capable of producing an
unjust result, a new trial is in order. However, the
trial judge’s refusal to provide the jury with written
instructions did not constitute plain error and
therefore does not warrant reversal.
