South 10th Street.” At the end of the hearing, without any evidence, the judge stated: 555 South 10th Street is what is now known as the Justice Center — Justice and Law Enforcement Center, and contains a number of offices .... [T]o send it to that building, and then the next thing one looks for is where in that build ing, and it directs them to the Lancaster County Attomey[’]s Office. This is a City Attorney matter and it should have been served on them, it was not, therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent this statement contains factual information as opposed to the trial judge’s reasoning, it must be ignored, because a judge cannot be a witness. See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-605 (Reissue 1995); State v. Rodriguez, 244 Neb. 707, 509 N.W.2d 1 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Both parties’ attorneys stated facts as
holding that the judges stated belief that the defendant was guilty did not disqualify the judge from presiding on remand holding that judge presiding at trial may not testify in that trial as witness holding that the trial court did not err in allowing a witness to testify regarding the child victims hearsay statements prior to the child testifying because ocga  24316 allows testimony about a childs outofcourt statements even in cases when the child does not appear as a witness as long as the child is available at the trial to testify holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify