was infringed by excessive limitations on cross-examination, we must determine whether that error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Chandler, 326 F.3d 210, 224 (3d Cir.2003). Green argues that the judge’s demeanor at trial amounted to error because (1) Green was denied a fair trial when the judge’s hostility towards Green gave the jury the impression that he believed Green to be guilty; and (2) the judge should have sua sponte recused himself for bias against Green. We conclude that the District Judge’s conduct was not prejudicial. A great deal of the judicial conduct about which Green complains occurred outside of the presence of the jury and therefore could not have communicated anything to the jury. See United States v. Nobel, 696 F.2d 231, 237 (3d Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Beaty, 722 F.2d
holding that plaintiff must on his or her own initiative prove that the product reached him or her without substantial change recognizing that a trial judge must be vigilant not to let his or her tone or gestures indicate the judges view recognizing the range of discretion of the trial judge holding that asking defendant for identification was not a seizure absent evidence that the officer used language or a tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled holding that letters must indicate harassment or attempt to affect future proceedings