by petitioners, was born out of the juror’s consideration of the testimony of the officers in this case, it is beyond the power of the trial judge to suggest, while the jury is in the midst of deliberations, that such opinions are impermissible. The judge may well have been correct that, had the juror stuck to his or her opinions, there might have been a hung jury or a mistrial. That conclusion, however, did not allow him in the deliberation stage to admonish the unknown juror for the views he or she might have held. Trial judges can improperly influence the jury at different times throughout the trial. A trial judge may prejudice the jury during the presentation of either party’s case through his or her interactions with counsel and witnesses. Johnson, 352 Md. 374, 722 A.2d 873 (<HOLDING>); Vandegrift v. State, 237 Md. 305, 311, 206
holding no error was committed when trial court held defense counsel in contempt in front of the jury though it would have been the better practice to reprimand counsel and impose the fine in the absence of the jury holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel holding that the trial judge exerted improper influence by in the presence of the jury ordering the arrest of defense counsel interrupting counsel frequently holding counsel in contempt holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding that trial judges critical remarks directed to defense counsel and his being adjudged in contempt of court all in the presence of the jury violated defendants state constitutional right to counsel