1. I'm more familiar with the option to bar witnesses from hearing other parts of the trial in civil cases, but obviously in this criminal case the judge issued a direct order to that effect. The parties knew that and were bound to follow the order.
2. This is a death penalty case and the judge is supposed to be totally neutral - not care what the outcome is. She is right to consider her options, and to take the violation of her order seriously.
3. The judge has among her options giving the jurors an instruction regarding the government's misconduct. Still, I am concerned if the article is correct and she has already disparaged the government to the jury. She has many options, including barring the witnesses, giving the jurors an instruction, and/or letting the defense counsel question the witnesses about this in front of the jury. I don't like what she told the jury at first blush, but frankly she was likely to do that after further consideration in any event.
4. Maybe I'm not speaking as an attorney now, but knowing who and what Moussaui is, it sickens me to hear the judge screaming about his constitutional rights.
5. I wonder if the attorney who sent this to the witnesses was not involved in the trial, and screwed up because they didn't realize the order existed. If so it's a major screw up but not an effort to interfere with the trial.
6. I think under the circumstances the government should have agreed to exclude the witnesses. The jurors know what the defendant did and they are either going to sentence him to death or not.
From the very start of this train wreck of a trial, Brinkema has seemingly bent over backwards to make sure the trial would be a circus and to maximize Moussaui's chances of acquittal. Only Lance Ito approaches her level of incompetence on the bench.
Thank you. I was hoping to obtain the insights of a least one attorney on this thread.
Still, I am concerned if the article is correct and she has already disparaged the government to the jury.
I'm not an attorney, but this worried me, too.
I wonder if the attorney who sent this to the witnesses was not involved in the trial, and screwed up because they didn't realize the order existed.
I had not thought of this possibility. If this is the case, why would she involve herself in any way? This is a rhetorical question, obviously, but her actions seem so odd no matter how I look at the matter.
I just wanted say that I appreciated your comments as it pertained to the Moussaoui trial, they were quite helpful and insightful.