[E. Pluribus Unum]

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?

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?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Apparently the judge was hoping to help the defense by giving them a chance to respond to any evidence which might compromise the trial.

Not that the defense would ever want to compromise the trial or delay the trial or confuse the trial or subvert the trial. Nah.

Let's think about this for a moment. Either the defense attorney was a seminarian at the same time and same place the abuse was occurring or he wasn't. That's not too difficult to discern.

And if it is true that he did attend the same seminary at the same time when the abuse took place, don't you think that's a pretty salient fact he should have disclosed so as to avoid a mistrial down the line?