[JLS]

And yes, a ruling remains a ruling even after the judge is switched.

This is my question, we know the above how? Sure it is logical. Sure it might be the way things are done in your state. But as you say, you don't play musical judges in your state either. NC is apparently different than every place else. So how do we know a rules stays in force after a judge changes. [He could certainly on a motion or on his own accord reverse this ruling could he?]

I guess the best evidence I see for the ruling staying in force is that the defense attorneys did not to renew the motion to have a record made first thing before this judge. These are very good attorneys so I guess they must know what they are doing.

[Mad-Margaret]

I don't remember that Judge Stephens made a ruling that the proceedings would be recorded. It was more of an informal thing. The defense attorneys asked and the proceedings were recorded. The was in the first setting. Maybe they didn't renew their request because they saw a court reporter there for the second setting. Just guessing.

[Jezebelle]

The ruling is binding on subsequent judges. It can only be undone by one of the parties filing a new motion to change the ruling, followed by a hearing on the motion and then a new ruling is entered, motion granted or denied, or part and parcel such as we saw in the ruling that came down today. If not, utter chaos would reign. They can't move squat as it is, so imagine if they had to re-adjudicate everything already decided when a judge is replaced. That those decisions stand until modified is procedural doctrine in all courts.