The Appellate Division, Second Department ordered a new trial in the case of Wilson Chimborazo after his attorney successfully argued that the original judge in his case improperly interfered with the burglary trial. Screenshot via Appellate Division, Second Department

A man’s 2017 burglary and assault conviction was tossed by a group of appeals judges last week after they ruled that the Queens judge overseeing the case appeared to act like a prosecutor instead of an independent arbiter.

Wilson Chimborazo will get a new trial nearly a decade after he was convicted of burglary, assault and bail jumping and sentenced to 17 years behind bars, judges in the Appellate Division, Second Department recently ruled.

The judges said Chimborazo’s right to a fair trial was violated by the judge overseeing his case, Ronald Hollie, who displayed a bias toward prosecutors as the relatively short trial played out in Queens Criminal Court.

Hollie, who retired from the bench in 2020 and died two years later, interjected a number of times when Chimborazo’s attorney was questioning witnesses and appeared to communicate to the jury that he favored the prosecution’s arguments.

“There must be a new trial, before a different Justice, because the Supreme Court conducted excessive and prejudicial questioning of trial witnesses,” the decision read.

While the appeals judges rejected Chimborazo’s claim that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence, they ordered a new trial in the case based on Hollie’s behavior alone. The judges also declined to rule on Chimborazo’s argument that his 17-year sentence was excessive because he’ll receive a new sentence if he is again convicted.

It’s not the first time the late judge’s conduct has been flagged for bias.

The Appellate Division, Second Department has made similar rulings on cases Hollie oversaw on at least eight different occasions.

Chimborazo’s attorney, Sam Feldman, a senior attorney with Appellate Advocates, told the panel of judges during a September court appearance that Hollie’s interjections during the trial were excessive.

“The court's extraordinary interference in this case with the presentation of evidence at trial denied Mr. Chimborazo his constitutional right to a fair trial,” Feldman said.

The former Queens judge asked 167 questions during the trial.

Feldman said Hollie’s questioning created two problems.

“It prevented defense counsel from pursuing coherent lines of questioning, from impeaching the prosecution's witnesses,” he said.

“But the other is the danger that the jury may have perceived that the court was leaning in a particular direction through constantly assisting the prosecutor in presenting this case,” he added. “Of course, it's fundamental to our system that the role of the trial judge is to be a neutral arbiter, and any risk that the jury perceives partiality on the court's part is something to be taken very seriously.”