no evidence or argument to rebut the presumption of prejudice or to establish that the improper contact was harmless to Davis. Therefore, the Court believes that this conduct likely affected the jury’s impartiality. Owen, 727 F.2d at 646. This is so because juries tend to view the presiding judge as the embodiment of the law; the jury could have interpreted even an innocuous comment by Judge Riley or his body language (either correctly or incorrectly) as revealing his view of the case, thus influencing its deliberations and/or verdict. At a minimum, the contact tarnished the appearance of justice and deprived the parties of their ability to make a contemporaneous record as to the context in which Judge Riley’s remarks to the jury were made. United States v. Tou , 59-60 (7th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Judge Riley’s ex parte communication with the
holding that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review not merely at the time the complaint is filed holding that defendants constitutional right to be present at all stages of his trial does not arise before the trial begins holding that the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of state and federal criminal proceedings holding that rule 43aentitles a defendant to be present at all stages of his trial and that cjommunication between the judge and the jury or a single juror is one of those stages holding that the defendant is entitled to be present at all stages of his trial  and a judges response to a note from the jury is one of those stages