This on another board.
"For the legal eagles on the board, does the judge review discovery in an effort to understand the legitimacy of charges? Or does a judge simply listen to the arguments of the two sides?
If a judge does review discovery, in this case some 2000 pages, can he/she render an opinion on the veracity of case before it goes to trial. Or, as a grand jury has seen fit to indict is the judge powerless?"
I say the judge can summarily dismiss the case. What say y'all?
"I say the judge can summarily dismiss the case."
I would think he can quash the original warrants, which
were based on false info.
Quash the flawed (laughable) photo ID.
Dismiss on the basis of no evidence.
(Any of the above will be sufficient, I think.)
That's what any reasonable and fair minded judge, not bent on preserving a corrupt system, would do.
If the judge doesn't do these things, then he should face impeachment and be made to do a perp walk as an accomplice to all the vile doings in Durham.
If he isn't brave enough to do these things, then he should resign and get off the bench.
(JMHO, of course. . .)
I don't think the new judge will review the evidence and make any judgement about the case. He is not the trier of facts.
But the defense via their motions will force him to review the evidence. The judge could throw out the indictments, I guess, since they were based on evidence collect through a defective warrant. Or the judge could throw out the IDs which are clearly defective and can not be fixed.
So to us nonlawyers it might look like the judge reviewed the evidence, but I think technically that will not be the case. But hopefully the motions will start to be heard.