So when confronted with evidence that one of the defense attorneys might be called as a witness to the alleged crime, what should the judge have done?
Prosecutors assert that Lynn “colluded” with the priests and archdiocesan leaders “to deceive parishioners so that known child abusers could continue as active and revered priests.”
Yeah, so lets pray for the priests and not their victims.
He should have declared a mistrial.
Why wasn't the "evidence" presented in open court by the prosecution?
The judge just introduced hearsay.
And you don't have a problem with that?
Like they say you can be a witness or an attorney on the case, but not both ~ and to a degree there is a choice. The problem here is the judge claims privileged knowledge to make her point so I'd guess it might be a fair argument to suggest you can be the judge or a witness.
Whatever the rules are they should apply the same to all parties in a trial else we will run into one of these deals where the perp eventually walks due to a decision of an appeals court that there was error at the trial court.
Is the prosecutor Catholic BTW, anyone know?