partiality to the prosecution that it became a factor in determining the defendant’s guilt, or whether it appear[ed] clear to the jury that the court believe[d] the accused is guilty.” United States v. Amiel, 95 F.3d 135, 146 (2d Cir.1996) (quotation marks and citations omitted) (alteration in original). The defendant has been denied his right to a fair trial and reversal is warranted “where it appears to the jury that the judge believes the accused is guilty.” Filani, 74 F.3d at 385. Here, the question posed by the district judge did not show bias or indicate any belief that the defendant was guilty. At trial, Dr. Vincent Leone testified concerning his diagnosis of Manselli as “100 percent disabled.” After counsel from both sides had finished examining Leone, the distri (2d Cir.1967) (<HOLDING>). Given the neutral character of the district
holding that limitations periods are tolled regardless of why the district court denied certification holding there are no grounds to appeal when defendant receives the remedy he requested from the trial court holding that the trial court properly denied a fathers motion for attorney fees where there was no misconduct by the mother holding that the defendant was denied right to a fair trial and reversing where there are few pages of this defendants 176 pages of testimony  which are free of some question by the court and there are numerous instances where the court took over the crossexamination from the prosecutor for extended periods holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion for mistrial where the trial court sustained defendants objections to a question by the prosecutor containing improper information and instructed the jury to disregard the question