Replies

Oh, okay. That makes sense. Conflict comes up, one side (in this case the prosecution) backs off, there's no more conflict, so there's nothing for the court to decide.

I'm not saying this is a permanent "back-off" by the prosecution. I'm sure they are getting ready to defend their wiretaps, etc., at a later date.

But anyway, this no longer looks like it means there will NECESSARILY be a different judge at trial. I know where Nancy Grace got that idea, though--generally, the trial judge is different from the prelim judge. I guess we shouldn't sweat it. If they keep Girolami, fine. If they don't, maybe they'll just get another sensible, cautious judge.

generally, the trial judge is different from the prelim judge.

That's true, I was surprised to read that Girolami would be keeping it.

Also from the minutes, Judge accepts the FBI expert DNA's testimony pending the defense expert on the subject, motion to strike is pending. Any bets that no expert appears for the defense? Seems like it would be a terrible waste of money to hire an expert that could be easily refuted. Especially with no jury to confuse...