The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports on a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals. According to the majority, “…Covington had rambled on for six pages worth of transcript about his troubled childhood, his drug use, his relationships…and his military service,” when the judge interrupted him. The question was whether this interruption “…amounted to an abridgment of his right to allocution.” The majority said the trial court was right; dissenting judge Diane Wood said the sentencing judge should have allowed Covington to finish, “…even if the judge was bored…or was impatient to wrap the proceedings up.”

Read full article here: Daily Writing Sample: When a Judge Interrupts