So much disinformation here.
If the Rutherford Institute attorney had not represented him, the ACLU was willing to. If these nonprofits hadn't, he would have received a court-appointed attorney. The only circumstances under which he would have been left without representation would be if he had insisted on it. This is very basic stuff.
There was no "trial judge" - there were two hearings and no trial since this was not presented as a criminal matter but as a civil one - i.e. commitment, not indictment.
Even if it had been a criminal matter, there would have been no trial at this stage but a remand hearing.
Looks to me like "paranoia and hysteria" are why he is now a free man.
Do you think the judge who rejected the involuntary commitment was swayed by any internet furor?
Or is it more likely that he reviewed the evidence prooffered to him by both sides and found in Raub's favor?
Trial judges are distinguishged from appellate judges and preside over fact finding hearings as well as full blown trials, civil and criminal.And but for the high caliber public interest lawyers he would have had to rely on a over-worked under paid public defender, never an appealing prospect. The reviewing judge may very well have been influenced by the media coverage, internet and print. It clearly seems to have prompted a faster than normal review and reversal. Certainly the quality of the subsequent defense and its aggressiveness were impacted by the outcry. I certainly hope if I am ever the subject of such an inquisition there is plenty of such paranoia and hysteria - and that I don't have to rely on those with your attitude to cover my six.