Create a 150 word response to the post below.

"Based on the foregoing, the appeal court should side with the plaintiffs. Yes the appellate court should agree as the tone set by the judge during voir dire prejudiced against the deceased party. The trial judge's tone and manner were improper, and they jeopardized the plaintiffs' right to a fair trial.The case should be remanded for retrial by a different judge. The trial judge's overt action of joking with a jury, along with the outspoken statements, would very definitely induce the jurors to deliver judgments that are not balanced, fair, and objective. In the case, the judge did not perform professionally as an impartial arbitrator. He is expected to provide a conducive environment for a fair trial while without causing a public disturbance. He caused the jurors to return a verdict against Shirley Swisher as a result of his actions. Rather of functioning as an impartial arbitrator, he became an active party, pressuring the jurors to adopt his side. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge's conduct was "inappropriate and potentially prejudiced," and remanded the case for a fresh trial before a different judge. First, the court said that "[a] trial judge is responsible with maintaining order and decorum in trial procedures." "[t]he ordinary juror is a layman; the average layman looks with most deep regard to the presiding judge; and the jury is, on the whole, sensitive to any statement that may signal favor or disfavor on the part of the trial judge," the court noted. Human opinion is frequently formed based on facts that appear to be poor and minor, as well as the words and utterances of a trial judge sitting with a jury in attendance are liable, however unintentionally, to shape the view of the jury members to the degree that one or both sides of the issue may be prejudiced or damaged as a result."