Chatty judge cited in Qns.

Talk nets rob susp new trial

An overly inquisitive Queens judge ran his mouth — and now a convicted armed robber could walk.

Supreme Court Justice Ronald Hollie posed more than 200 questions from the bench during the 2017 trial of defendant Darnell Ramsey (right), acting more like a second prosecutor than an arbiter of justice, according to the July 10 decision from the Appellate Division, Second Department.

It marked the fifth prosecution where the judge was cited for prejudicial behavior from the bench, and gave Ramsey a chance to reverse his conviction for a gunpoint robbery that netted roughly $4,000. The 30-yearold remains jailed pending a bail hearing.

“There must be a new trial, before a different justice, because the Supreme Court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of trial witnesses,” the decision explained. “Although defense counsel did not object to the questioning of witnesses by the court, we reach this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.”

The appeals court in all five instances barred Hollie from presiding over any retrial.

Ramsey’s appeals lawyer, Robert DiDio, was aware of Hollie’s past record before poring through the trial transcript. In his appeal filing, the attorney noted 226 occasions when Hollie (above) questioned witnesses.

It is common for judges to ask questions during a case, particularly if the witness is confused by queries from trial attorneys or needs to clarify an answer. Several defense lawyers said most jurors tend to accept such behavior, and many lawyers are fearful of challenging a judge in open court.

But DiDio said Hollie, a former Queens assistant district attorney, took it to the extreme — and clearly tried to lead witnesses into answers favorable to the prosecutor’s case.

“Reading the transcript, it just jumped out at us,” DiDio said. “It was just outrageous.”

The appeals court agreed, charging the judge interrupted cross-examination, bolstered the credibility of prosecution witnesses and generally acted as an advocate for the district attorney’s office.

Hollie refused to answer any questions about his tactics.

But a law enforcement source came to his defense, saying Hollie does not play favorites. In a county as diverse as Queens, with many immigrants who speak English as a second language, it’s not uncommon for judges to step in to clarify a question or answer.

“I don’t think he tries to put his hands on the scale,” the source said.

Ramsey’s mom, Ruth Bowens, 59, a retired court officer, couldn’t attend his trial because she was on the witness list. But she heard from her son and others in the courtroom that Hollie seemed to tilt toward the prosecution.

“This judge should be admonished,” she said, “and not be back on bench, ever.”

Her son is still pondering what to do if given the choice for a retrial or a chance to go free with time served — but with a conviction on his record.

In the four prior reversals — another two in 2017, and two more the next year — the jailed defendants all copped pleas rather than going to trial again. All were set free, with three pleading to felonies and one to a misdemeanor.

Robert Masters, executive assistant district attorney for the Queens DA’s office, said the appeals court appears to be extending its interpretation of a decades-old ruling aimed at reducing “the level of questioning of witnesses permitted by trial judges.” But he described Hollie as a fair judge who will likely adapt.

In court recently, defense attorney Victor Knapp appeared before Hollie at a bail hearing for a client.

“I have seen the concerns,” Knapp said, “and I hope he takes them into account for the future.”