One finds that the appellate court is, by its own admission, "troubled." But beyond that bad pun and cheap shot, one finds that the trial judge's communications with the jury went beyond accepting a donut, and the appeals court spells out why this requires a new trial:

State v. Wroth, 15 Wash. 621, 623, 47 P. 106 (1896); see also United States v. Smith, 31 F.3d 469, 471 (7th Cir. 1994) ('{T}he unusual practice of a judge entering the jury room to speak privately with jurors is almost certain to run afoul of a defendant's right to be present during trial proceedings.').

In this case, we are troubled by each of the trial judge's ex parte contacts. We find particularly disconcerting the judge's advice to a juror regarding the giving of a victim impact statement in a separate criminal case and the judge's failure to disclose to the parties a juror's knowledge of an individual in a video DeGroff had presented as part of his defense.

DeGroff maintains that such contacts require automatic reversal. While we disagree that reversal is automatic, the record here demonstrates that reversal is required.

So, no -- the conviction wasn't thrown out because the judge accepted a donut. This was an error but might well have been ruled a harmless error. The conviction was thrown out because the judge met with a juror privately in his chambers and because the judge decided, off the record, out of court, and without notifying counsel, that a juror who recognized someone in an evidence video was not disqualified.

In other words, as much as I hate to see a man who very likely molested children have a good shot at going free, the appeal court's decision seems reasonable.