TRIAL JUDGES ARE FACED WITH A TREMENDOUSLY DIFFICULT TASK. AT EACH TRIAL, THEY MUST MAKE DECISIONS THAT MAY AFFECT THE PROCEEDINGS, AND YET THE JURY REMAINS THE FINAL ARBITER OF FACT. WHEN THE OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOR OF A TRIAL JUDGE IS QUESTIONED ON APPEAL, THE PROPER INQUIRY SHOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT THE JUDGE'S BEHAVIOR HAS AFFECTED THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE JUDGE AND JURY TO SUCH A DEGREE THAT THE BEHAVIOR CONTROLLED THE VERDICT. STATED SIMPLY, HAS THE JUDGE USURPED THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY? THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A GOOD STARTING POINT IN DEALING WITH THIS QUESTION. RECOGNIZING THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT THE ABILITY OF THE JURY TO DISREGARD INFLUENCES EXTRANEOUS TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE BECOMES A FACTOR BY WHICH THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINES THE STRICTNESS OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IT WILL APPLY. AN APPELLATE COURT SHOULD MAKE AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE AND ADJUST THE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE THAT IT ASSIGNS TO VARIOUS PREJUDICIAL AND MITIGATING FACTORS IN LIGHT OF THAT EVALUATION. WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS ONE-SIDED, A MORE LENIENT STANDARD OF REVIEW SHOULD BE ALLOWED; WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS CONFLICTING, A STRICTER STANDARD SHOULD BE DEMANDED. IN USING THE EVIDENCE AS A RATIONAL GUIDE TO SUBSEQUENT EFFORTS TO BALANCE PERTINENT FACTORS, AN APPELLATE COURT WILL BE ABLE TO STRIKE A SENSIBLE BALANCE BETWEEN OVEREMPHASIZING AND IGNORING THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE. THE ADVANTAGES OF SUCH AN APPROACH ARE NUMEROUS: IT IS IN ACCORD WITH THE SCHEME SET FORTH IN CHAPMAN V. CALIFORNIA; IT IS EASILY GRASPED AND APPLIED; AND IT BRINGS A DEGREE OF LOGIC AND CONSISTENCY INTO AN AREA MARKED BY CONFUSION AND POST-HOC RATIONALIZATION. (KBL)