N.W.2d 914, 915 (1969), the trial judge “repeatedly disciplined counsel, often before the jury, questioned and cross-examined witnesses, often argumentatively, and ‘clarified’ testimony.” The Michigan Court of Appeals, when reversing, held that “the trial judge too frequently interjected her personality and views into the proceedings.” Id. at 38, 174 N.W.2d at 915-16. Noting that “[t]rial judges who berate, scold, and demean a lawyer so as to hold him up to contempt in the eyes of the jury, destroy that balance of judicial impartiality necessary to a fair hearing,” the court further held that the trial judge’s behavior denied the defendant a “fair, impartial, and orderly trial.” Id. at 38-39, 174 N.W.2d at 916. See also Wilkerson v. State, 510 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (<HOLDING>); Tyndall v. State, 234 So.2d 154, 155
holding no violation of substantial rights occurred during voir dire where record did not show that defendant was denied fair and impartial trial holding trial judges repeated rebukes of defense counsel including  t cant trust you down there  worked to deny defendant a fair and impartial trial holding that a new york statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel holding that the regular association during trial between the jury and two deputy sheriffs who testified at trial undermined the defendants right to a fair trial by an impartial jury recognizing requirement that state personnel board be a fair and impartial tribunal