Did the trial judge's actions interfere with Archer's right to a fair trial?

Question

Archer, Bailey, and Edmonds robbed three men, wounding two and killing one. Edmonds and Bailey were arrested, tried, and convicted while Archer was still at large. Bailey received a reduced sentence in return for agreeing to testify against Edmonds and Archer. Bailey told police that he did not know Archer's full name but was able to provide a description and a location of where Archer might be found. Archer was later arrested and identified by the surviving victims. Archer's first trial ended in a mistrial when Bailey refused to testify. At Archer's second trial, Bailey's counsel informed the trial court that Bailey was unwilling to testify. Bailey alleged he had been stabbed in prison for having testified against Edmonds and was afraid to testify against Archer. Bailey was a "compellable witness" because he was immune from any charges except perjury and contempt. Thereupon the trial judge threatened Bailey with contempt if he did not testify, called a fellow judge in Bailey's presence to set up a separate contempt hearing, and orchestrated the hearing. The judge also told Bailey that if he testified favorable for Archer, all that the state could do would be to cross-examine him about his previous testimony in Edmonds' trial. Bailey was then brought before another trial judge for a contempt hearing, and although it is not known what transpired in the other judge's chambers, Bailey then testified, contrary to his testimony at Edmonds's trial, that it was Archer's idea to rob people that night. He did identify Archer as the third assailant, which contributed to Archer's conviction.
What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Yes. Case remanded for retrial.