This sounds very, very strange to me. The judge and the prosecutor have sat down together and shared all the evidence, but the defense attorneys haven’t seen any of it?
And they want to refuse a preliminary look at the evidence on this basis?
This judge sounds as if she should be removed from the case.
Not the fact that this defense attorney most likely attended the same seminary at the same time the alleged sexual abuse was going on?
Facts like that are convenient to be kept hidden until such time as one would want a mistrial to be called. Say in about a year or so, as the trial is concluding and the guilt of the defendants is about to be declared.
Actually sounds like a mistrial for many reasons.
“The judge and the prosecutor have sat down together and shared all the evidence, but the defense attorneys haven’t seen any of it?”
The deadline for discovery hasn’t arrived yet. Obviously, the defense has seen some of the evidence, since the defense attorney quotes a grand jury witness during this very story.