1. This is a federal not state case. 2. Yes it is hard to prove discrimination controlling for all other things. Yet courts routinely do this. There is a proces

1. This is a federal not state case. 2. Yes it is hard to prove discrimination controlling for all other things. Yet courts routinely do this. There is a process in place. Moreover, findings of discrimination have led to other structural changes in the judicial system, e.g., administration of the death penalty. 3. OP was talking about blinding the judge, not the jury. Sentencing, not verdict. I agree that attractiveness is ridiculously subjective. What I like about OP's argument is, I can think of few legit reasons for a sentencing judge (as opposed to fact-finding jury) to need to see a defendant rather than just hearing the arguments being made, and I can think of many drawbacks to allowing a judge to do so, such as conscious or unconscious biases.