Appeals panel hears claim judge's closed-door sidebar and tone denied defendant a public, fair trial

An appellate panel on the record heard argument in State v. Mitchell over whether a brief, unrecorded sidebar and the trial judge's conduct violated the defendant's right to a public trial and the appearance of fairness.

Defense attorney Moses Okeo, appearing for Aaron Mitchell, told the panel that during opening statements the trial judge abruptly interrupted the defense, accused counsel of violating a pretrial ruling and then took the parties into chambers. Okeo said defense counsel asked the judge either to record the sidebar or to excuse the jury and make the exchange part of the public record; the requests were denied, he said. "He was being singled out because of his race," Okeo told the panel, and when defense counsel tried to put that concern on the record the judge repeatedly interrupted and told him to sit down.

Okeo asked the panel to reverse Mitchell's convictions, arguing the sequence deprived the defendant of the constitutional right to a public trial and created an appearance of unfairness. He told the court the mistrial motion preserved the issue for appeal and urged that precedent allows reversal where the record shows the judge acted with hostility toward counsel.

Representing the state, Anne Summers of the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office said no public-trial violation occurred. Summers said the disputed exchange followed an admitted violation of a motion in limine during opening statement, lasted about three minutes, and that the jury remained in the box during the brief sidebar. "There are 11 pages of transcript in which the parties and the court discuss what happened at a 3-minute sidebar," Summers said, arguing that the written record would leave an ordinary observer with no confusion about what occurred.

The prosecutors also told the panel that Mitchell waived an appearance-of-fairness claim by not moving for recusal at trial and that there is no evidence of actual or potential judicial bias in the record. The state further argued that any perceived tension was a product of routine courtroom interruptions and rulings and that multiple rulings throughout the case were in Mitchell's favor.

Panel members pressed both sides on two recurring points: first, whether a short, out-of-chambers sidebar must be recorded or put on the public transcript when a party requests it; and second, whether a mistrial motion or a recusal motion is necessary to preserve an appearance-of-fairness issue for appellate review. Counsel and the panel discussed distinctions between asking for mistrial relief and seeking a judge's recusal and how each preserves—or fails to preserve—different claims.

In closing, Okeo cited precedent he said supports reversal when a judge's demeanor and actions create an appearance of hostility that affects counsel's ability to make a public record. The defense asked the court to reverse the convictions; the panel reserved decision.

The panel's final questions focused on preservation and the adequacy of the trial record. The court did not issue a ruling at argument.

Next steps: the appellate panel will issue a written opinion resolving whether the record and the procedural posture preserve Mitchell's public-trial and appearance-of-fairness claims and whether they warrant reversal.