The COA held that a judge can pierce the veil of impartiality outside of the presence of a jury, and the judge did so here by suggesting questions that the prosecutor could ask on cross-examination, which amounted to the judge engaging in litigation strategy. However, this conduct did not amount to plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights. The COA, thus, affirmed the conviction and sentence.

The trial court in this custody case did not err in denying the mother’s petition for primary physical and sole legal custody of the parties’ children, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled.