Uh, no, the judge is not entitled, without evidence, to delve into the motives of the state prosecutors for their decisions on charging, withdrawing charges, presenting a case, or bargaining a case. If he does so, then he’s stepped down from his Judiciary Branch role as impartial judge, and taken on an impermissible prosecution role in the case. This is what Judge Sullivan is doing. He is assuming the prosecution has a malignant motive at this late date, not against the defendant, but somehow a Malignant motive against the state! The judge has now added not only the weight of the state prosecution against the lone defendant, but also the tonnage of the entire Judiciary Branch on him, instead of remaining impartial in wielding blind justice’s sword. He’s put his thumb on justice’s scales.
And you are an attorney or a judge?
All I said and I’ll say it again, the judge has a responsibility to review everything submitted to his court.
That should be obvious.