People v. Jackson 

Defendant was convicted, after bench trial, of first degree murder, but mentally ill; Defendant had raised defense of insanity at trial. Court abandoned its role as neutral and impartial arbiter of fact by adopting a prosecutorial role when questioning Defendant's forensic psychology expert and by relying on matters based on prior private knowledge. Tone of and resulting answers to court's questions to defense expert's questions suggest that court prejudged outcome of case. Case remanded for new trial before a difference judge. (CUNNINGHAM, concurring; CONNORS, dissenting.)