What I find highly annoying about this trial is Judge Cote had already formed her opinion prior to trial... in a statement to reporters she essentially said she thought Apple was guilty before hearing any evidence.
This is, essentially, a sham trial in which the USG was always going to win.
A trial by judge is very different than a trial by jury. In a jury trial, the only evidence that exists is the evidence that is presented in open court. Making a decision before the courtroom phase of the trial would be irresponsible.
But in a non-jury trial, the judge studies all the evidence independently, and the courtroom phase is just supplemental. You don't need someone to testify to the facts in their report if you can just read the report, right? The courtroom phase is also quite expensive, which is why a judge would indicate that based on the evidence she had seen, it probably wasn't worth doing it. To save everyone the effort.
It wasn't a statement to reporters, it was a statement in a preliminary hearing. It was basically the judge telling the parties: "look, this is where I think it's going to go" so the parties could use that information in settlement talks and possibly avoid the expense of a trial.
"Asked during a preliminary hearing Thursday to share her thoughts about the Department of Justice's case against Apple (AAPL) in the long-awaited e-book antitrust trial, U.S. District Judge Denise Cote said this, according to Reuters..."
In bench trials, where the judge is making the decision anyway, the judge does not sit as a tabula rasa absorbing the evidence until the very end of the trial. Like anybody would do, they read the materials in the pleadings and some of the evidence and form an initial opinion. It is not uncommon for them to share this opinion with the parties as the case progresses so that the parties can settle before things go any further.
in a statement to reporters she essentially said she thought Apple was guilty before hearing any evidence.
The judge had received a preponderance of evidence both in pre-trial and related rulings before making that statement. Pre-trial opinions are specifically designed to inform the two parties of the judge's current temperament.
> in a statement to reporters she essentially said she thought Apple was guilty before hearing any evidence
Are you talking about this[1]? The statement wasn't to reporters. It was a tentative in-court statement in response to an inquiry by one of the lawyers. Hardly the basis for a serious accusation of misconduct against a federal judge.
This happens all the time in court cases. When I sued a home builder for fraud, after reading the pleas and within 20 minutes of being in court the judge said to the Defendant, "Look. I'm finding 300bps to be a credible witness. I have another case I have to go to now. There's a room over there, I suggest you settle with him." They ended up settling with me.
In Apple's case, every conspirator involved except Apple settled with the government. Apple are the only ones that chose to go to court. The "tentative view" that Judge Cote formed by reading the pleadings was a way to tell the Defendant: you sure seem guilty based on the evidence you and the government provided. If you want to save yourself some money, I suggest settling.
Sometimes cases are so clear cut that it is just not right for it to proceed to a full trial. That's where things like tentative views and Summary Judgments come in.
This is, essentially, a sham trial in which the USG was always going to win.