Let Sleeping Judges Lie?

The BBC has reported that a trial was abandoned after the judge apparently fell asleep. This is probably commoner than realised. There was an Australian judge who received a great deal of publicity for falling asleep and snoring loudly during several cases, as reported by Grunstein and Banerjee in the journal Sleep:

According to the newspaper, it was claimed that the judge fell asleep numerous times during a corporate fraud trial and in another separate shooting trial, both in 2002. Subsequently, in 2003,
he was reported to have fallen asleep during a rape victim’s evidence.
Following this episode, Judge Dodd was found allegedly asleep during a drug-smuggling trial that, the newspaper stated, led to the jurors nicknaming him “Judge Nodd.” In 2004, he was reported to be asleep intermittently during a 7-month trial of 7 men who were eventually convicted of shipping 383 kg of pure cocaine into Australia. The newspaper alleged that, during this 2004 trial, the defense lawyer would hand notes to court staff who were sitting near to Judge Dodd to wake him up. The sleepiness was also noted by jurors in the trial, who commented on Judge Dodd’s loud snoring. The accused were subsequently sentenced for up to 24 years in prison.

The unfortunate Judge Dodd actually had a medical problem:

In late 2004, some months prior to any press reports about his sleepiness during trials, Judge Dodd obtained a medical consultation regarding his sleepiness, was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea, and was apparently treated effectively. There were no reported sleep episodes following commencement of treatment. This was confirmed in a statement by District Court Chief
Judge Reg Blanch.

Trials are quite boring for long stretches, and it is the jury more than the judge who has to pay attention to proceedings. Certainly it has been held that judicial sleep is not fatal to the defendant's prospects of a fair trial, as Grunstein's and Banerjee's paper relates:

The Appeals Chamber found that appellants had failed to establish that Judge Karibi-Whyte was asleep during substantial (emphasis added) portions of the trial, although video evidence apparently showed the judge having regular sleep episodes usually up to 10 seconds long, sometimes up to 30 seconds with snoring. On 1 occasion, the judge was asleep for 30 minutes. The Appeals Chamber did comment that the judge’s conduct was not regarded as appropriate for a judge but still rejected the ground of appeal. (International War Crimes Tribunal, The Hague)

Local journalist Miss Tamsen Vian-Courtenay commented that Judge Coombe’s “head fell so far forward as to be almost touching the table,” with sounds that she thought were snoring and that
the judge “seemed to wake up with a start.” However the Court of Appeals rejected the men’s appeals against the conviction, though they did reduce their sentences. Lord Justice Rose of the Appeals Court said it was “highly regrettable” that Judge Coombe had fallen asleep, but it did not render the conviction unsafe. “Because the appearance as well as the actuality of justice being done is important, no judge ought in any circumstances to fall asleep during any stage of a criminal trial.” However the men’s lawyers had not demonstrated that Judge Coombe had failed to sum up significant evidence. (Court of Appeal, London, United Kingdom)

So let sleeping judges lie.