This is unusual, to say the least. Is it also improper? At least one expert thinks so.

The judge who presided over the biggest terrorism trial since Sept. 11 left his Detroit courtroom, traveled to CIA headquarters and helped interview a witness whose testimony later became key to the judge's reversal of convictions in the case.

Government officials familiar with the interview told The Associated Press the judge and Justice officials worked together outside the presence of defense lawyers to conduct the interview because of concerns about protecting secret information under the Classified Information Procedures Act. But legal experts said U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen's actions were highly unusual and could provide grounds for lawyers to challenge his impartiality because he assumed the role of investigator in a case he continued to preside over.

"Based on those facts, is it proper? The answer is no," said Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University who has followed closely the unraveling of the Detroit terror case. "A judge is not supposed to engage in investigation off the (official court) record and with people who are aligned with one of the parties."

Why is it just coming to light now? Is there no end to the unfairness of this prosecution?

[link via How Appealing.]