They appear so similar that when Benjamin was arrested and charged with murder in 2005, a local newspaper mistakenly ran a photo of Hall. The photo had come from the state Department of Corrections Web site, which also muddled the two.

The confusion over the men had more serious consequences last fall, during Benjamin's homicide trial in Superior Court in Camden, when a key witness mixed up the men while testifying.

That led to a mistrial and unleashed an unusual series of events, with prosecutors accusing the judge of bias and asking him not to hear the case again - a rare request.

Waiting on a verdict was the family of Marheem Payton, the 16-year-old boy Benjamin shot three times in 2005 outside a Camden park full of people celebrating Unity Day.

Instead of going back to trial in this convoluted case, Benjamin, 26, recently pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He faces a maximum of 15 years at his sentencing on March 14.

The whole ordeal has left the Payton family disheartened.

"I really don't care for what he got," said Payton's mother, Claudette. "I think he should have gotten 25 years or more."

Benjamin was sitting in an open convertible outside Staley Park when Payton came up to the car and began punching him, according to testimony. Claudette Payton said Benjamin had robbed her son a few days earlier.

"I guess my son got a little angry when he saw him over at the park, where we live at," she said. "[Benjamin] shot my 16-year-old boy because he couldn't take fighting somebody."

At his plea hearing, Benjamin said Payton was punching him with a piece of broken glass in his hand.

The problems at Benjamin's September trial began with a witness who said she saw him drive away from the scene in the convertible. She testified that she and Benjamin had attended grammar school together - a claim verified by school records.

But later in her testimony, she said Benjamin had lived across from her at the Ferry Station Apartments in Camden. Benjamin never lived in those apartments; Hall did.

Benjamin's attorney, Edward Crisonino, asked for a mistrial. Judge William J. Cook decided to strike the witness' testimony instead.

Investigators then discovered Hall was in jail on the day of the shooting, meaning he couldn't have been the shooter and Crisonino couldn't argue a mistaken identity defense.

"By then, the whole case was a mess," Crisonino said.

Cook declared a mistrial.

But Assistant Prosecutor Laurie Corson said the judge went too far, making several comments that showed bias to her case.

When Cook told the jurors to disregard the witness' testimony, he showed them a photograph of Hall and noted Hall had used Benjamin's name in the past and "bore a 'striking similarity' to the defendant," according to court papers.

Later, after declaring the mistrial, the papers say, Cook "opined in open court on the lack of credibility of the state's witness . . . commenting that she 'was not a very good witness.' "

In the following months, Cook wrote letters to lawyers on both sides, attempting to schedule a retrial. In those letters, he noted the jury would have to be instructed on manslaughter charges, because Payton had punched Benjamin before the shooting.

In January, as the two sides were preparing for a retrial, Benjamin said he would prefer to have the case tried and decided by Judge Cook, rather than by a jury.

That's when Corson asked Cook not to hear the case. She said his letters "had signaled his own opinion that this case was indeed manslaughter and not murder." She also said that he had made up his mind that one of the prosecution's main witnesses was not credible.

In fact, prosecutors said, the judge's letters had encouraged Benjamin to seek a trial by judge.

Crisonino said he could not disclose why Benjamin wanted Cook to decide the case, but he called the prosecutor's claim "speculation and a misreading of Judge Cook's letters."

Cook wouldn't remove himself from the case, and Corson appealed his decision. The Appellate Division refused to take up the matter.

In his brief to the appeals court, Crisonino said Judge Cook had done nothing wrong.

"The state's real fear . . . is that Judge Cook will not be carried away by the emotion and tragedy of a 16-year-old boy being shot to death," he wrote. "Without that emotion, a clear analysis of the facts and law in this case may well result in a verdict for [manslaughter] and not murder."

He also described Judge Cook's comment about the witness as "offhand."

"He never ruled you should disregard her information because she wasn't credible," he said. "[Prosecutors] tried to spin it that way."

Cook could not comment on the case due to judicial rules, his secretary said.

A spokesman for the prosecutor's office would not comment on the case other than to say its attorneys "took steps they felt were necessary to ensure a fair and just process in this case."

"The Appellate Court disagreed with our brief and we respect their conclusions," said the spokesman, Jason Laughlin.

Erik Lillquist, an associate dean and professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, said a judge's main obligation is to be fair and impartial.

"As long as he can assure the parties that he will be . . . it's within his discretion to deny the recusal motion," he said.

Lillquist said judges often decide cases in which they've made previous judgments - even if a judge finds someone guilty and the conviction is overturned, that same judge may hear the case again, he said.

But Claudette Payton thought Cook was biased.

"He seemed to be for this murderer," she said. "Was he friends with the lawyer or what?"

Her older son, Antwain, said the episode shattered his faith in the judicial system and could discourage homicide witnesses, who already are reluctant to come forward.

"They should have kept the first jury, and he should have been convicted of first-degree murder," Antwain Payton said. "This guy gets to come home and see his family. My little brother, we don't get to see him again. He's dead and buried."