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?
Lawyers can be disqualified from a case because of conflict of interest.
If he’s to be a witness in the case, and if he was indeed a former seminarian, he has no business being involved like that.
The judge did the right thing.
There have to be other lawyers around not connected with the case.
She thinks she is a European judge.
I want all evidence to be presented as allowed in law. If that evidence leads to the finding of facts and from that the jury releases a guilty verdict so be it. However the judge is way out of line. Most people do not know that appeals are based on violations of findings of law not on what the jury has decided. This segment of the article:
“Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she’s received information that “might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian.”
The information “stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused,” Hughes said, adding that DeSipio “may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student.”
She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. “I just don’t know if it’s true,” Hughes said. “I really don’t know if it’s true.”
Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. “Let them spill it out right now!” DeSipio demanded.
“How dare they send you a letter about that,” DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney’s office. “That’s an abomination.”
In my opinion tells me that if this Judge proceeds over the case an argument for appeal will be made upon any conviction and that conviction will likely be overturned.
She is an ass and her behavior is endangering the case. IF that happens the victims will be the losers.