People v. Stevens, 498 Mich. 162

Defendant Adam Stevens was tried for his three‑month‑old son Kian’s death; prosecution alleged abusive head trauma (shaking or slamming); defendant claimed he tripped and accidentally dropped the infant.
Trial featured conflicting medical experts: prosecution’s pediatric child‑abuse expert and forensic pathologist; defense called Dr. Mark Shuman, a forensic pathologist who said a short fall could be possible.
During an eight‑day jury trial, the trial judge repeatedly questioned defendant and defense expert Shuman in a manner defense counsel contemporaneously objected to as hostile and prejudicial.
Jury convicted Stevens of second‑degree murder and second‑degree child abuse; he was sentenced to concurrent lengthy prison terms.
Court of Appeals (split panel) affirmed; dissent argued judge’s questioning showed partiality. Michigan Supreme Court granted review to clarify the standard for judicial partiality and to apply it to this record.
Michigan Supreme Court reversed: judge’s sustained, targeted questioning and tone created appearance of advocacy/partiality against defendant, piercing the veil of impartiality and requiring automatic reversal and a new trial before a different judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether judicial questioning and conduct deprived defendant of a fair trial by showing partiality	The People argued the judge’s questions were permissible under MRE 614(b) and did not unduly influence the jury	Stevens argued the judge’s hostile, repetitive questioning of defendant and defense expert, and demeanor, created appearance of bias that improperly influenced the jury	Court held judge’s conduct, considering totality of circumstances, created reasonable likelihood of improper influence/appearance of advocacy against defendant; veil of impartiality pierced and reversal required
Appropriate standard for reviewing judicial partiality claims	N/A (issue of law)	N/A	Adopted new standard: ask whether, under totality of circumstances, it is reasonably likely judge’s conduct improperly influenced jury by creating appearance of advocacy or partiality; enumerate non‑exhaustive factors to guide review
Whether harmless‑error review applies when judge’s partiality is shown	The People implicitly urged that any error was harmless given evidence	Stevens argued preserved objection required automatic reversal because judicial partiality is a structural error	Court held judicial partiality is structural error; harmless‑error review inapplicable; preserved claims require reversal and new trial
Remedy when a judge pierces veil of impartiality	N/A	N/A	Remedy: automatic reversal and remand for a new trial before a different, impartial judge

Simpson v. Burton, 328 Mich. 557 (1949) (early Michigan discussion warning judges not to indicate opinions or stress testimony to jury)
People v. Cole, 349 Mich. 175 (1957) (examined cumulative effect of judge’s conduct and prejudice standard)
Young v. People, 364 Mich. 554 (1961) (reversal where judge’s disbelief of defense expert became evident to jury)
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927) (due process forbids bias of adjudicator)
Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless‑error doctrine and when reversal required)
Fulminante v. Arizona, 499 U.S. 279 (1991) (structural errors requiring automatic reversal)
Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986) (adjudication by biased judge requires reversal)