What facts are they going to testify to that could have any possible relevance at a trial? Witnesses testify to facts, not law. Unless they were factual witnesses to whatever crime this person was accused of, this is abuse of the subpoena power.
And a witness list has no force of law - just the subpoena. The judges would not be disqualified purely by reason of appearing on a witness list. Think a minute: any criminal defendant could disqualify all the judges in a circuit or on an appeals court from hearing his case -- just by typing their names on a sheet of paper. You don't think the defense lawyers would have a field day with that? Besides, you have to file a motion for disqualification (which is heard by a judge not involved) - there's a procedure you have to go through to disqualify, it's done all the time and judges ARE disqualified fairly frequently when there's an actual legal reason to do so.
But if the defendant was unable to call witnesses because he was excluded from the courtroom, he had a solid ground for appeal and reversal of whatever happened. But it sounds like he DIDN'T appeal the one thing that would have done him some good, or it was just lost in the noise.
If the case didn't appear on a docket, there are a couple of possibilities. One, the judge and his clerk are crooked. Could be, especially in some rural counties. Two, the defendant was appearing pro se and didn't realize that he was actually at a motions hearing or a calendar call, which don't appear on the trial docket, needless to say. Three, if you get a court reporter and have takedown, you HAVE a record, docket or no docket, crooked judge or no crooked judge.
It sounds to me like this was a pro se defendant who got in way over his head. Most judges exercise a great deal of patience with pro se litigants, but their patience is not unlimited. Most have very crowded dockets and not enough help, and tend to get annoyed with a pro se litigant who wastes everyone's time and doesn't know what he's doing. It's kind of like amateur home brain surgery to think that you can represent yourself when your life or freedom is at stake.
The justices were on the approved witness list.
It was appealed on that ground as well as many other constitutional grounds.
It was a pro se litigant, but a litigant who actually knew what he was doing.
Do you find it impossible to believe that all the members of a state supreme court could be corrupt in order to protect other members of the judiciary?
If not corrupt, why would they hide the fact that the case was even appealed and why did it never appear on a docket available to the public?