No. It would only be unethical if the judge relied on information not in evidence in rendering a decision. Asking hard questions or paying special attention to a case on the basis of news reports is perfectly acceptable judicial behavior.
Sentencing a first offender, someone with no prior criminal record, on a burglary in which no one is injured and no personal property is stolen, to twenty years… is that “asking hard questions” or is that perhaps “paying special attention to a case?”
Dunno. What was the evidence? All I’m playing off of is RTFirefly’s comment that the judge pressed the defendants hard enough that one of them decided to talk. As I noted above, entering a judgment (e.g., a sentence) based on facts not in evidence is, of course, quite improper.
He was known as “Maximum John” before Watergate made him famous, due to what was regarded as his propensity towards handing out long sentences.
I hope nobody is surprised at the notion that a judge might pay a bit more attention to a case in front of him than he otherwise might, due to its having found its way into the papers.