It is not unusual for a judge to defer a sanctions hearing until trial is concluded. However, counsel will argue (usually for the defense) that their ability to represent the client is impeded by a kind of intimidation. That is exactly what the judge was doing when she foreclosed Don West's objections as the judge was interrogating the defendant and then cited to counsel the roles of conduct respecting objection after a ruling-there can hardly be a less subtle way to intimidate counsel. It is counsel's job to advocate on behalf of a client and he cannot do so if he is foreclosed.
The judge might have wanted to defer a ruling until the conclusion of the trial in order to get the prosecutors off the hook. If the jury acquits, the judge can hold that there was no prejudice because no harm was done. Or, the judge might have wanted to establish by her ruling of exclusion that there was no harm done and let the prosecutors off the hook that way and for roughly the same reason.
We have a politically charged case, interference with the orderly course of prosecutorial discretion running from the White House through the Department of Justice, to the governor of Florida, a special prosecutor, and the city administration, tainting a murder investigation, and now we have alleged misconduct by the special prosecutor in failing to disclose crucial evidence. Finally, the trial judge renders a highly dubious ruling excluding that evidence.
It is hardly surprising that blood pressure rises in patriotic hearts who love the rule of law.
