The lawyer clearly criticized the judge for attempting to blackmail him into leaving the case (does she fear him winning the case?) Whether or not he admitted to being a child molester or other kind of tutti-fruitti is a different issue, and should be referred to a trial, not a judge to counsel discussion in a hearing on an entirely different matter.
You begin to see why these guys get off so easy ~ too many judges not interested in running a regular trial from beginning to end. Going after their lawyer is mickey mouse stuff. If he needs gotten he can be gotten at another time.
And note that the defence attorney accused the prosecution of sending the letter. Why?
It sounds like the judge is running a going out of way to follow procedure and avoid a later mistrial. No one is “going after” the defence!
Wow. You know that she was attempting to blackmail him into leaving the case?
How do you know that? Did she tell you? Can you read minds? Are you just guessing?
Are you sure she wasn't warning him of what could be coming so he would be prepared and could make contingency plans? Seems to me that she did him a favor by letting him know so he wasn't blind-sided later by it. That way it would give him time to think it through and decide what would be best for the defense to do about the situation. If he's subpoenaed as a witness, he can't refuse.
His reaction was totally uncalled for
Whether or not he admitted to being a child molester or other kind of tutti-fruitti is a different issue, and should be referred to a trial, not a judge to counsel discussion in a hearing on an entirely different matter.
Who said anything about the defense lawyer being accused of being a child molester?
Did you actually READ the article? REALLY read it?
You begin to see why these guys get off so easy ~ too many judges not interested in running a regular trial from beginning to end. Going after their lawyer is mickey mouse stuff. If he needs gotten he can be gotten at another time.
When? During the trial so a mistrial can be declared? You do know that the trial hasn't started yet, don't you? How can she be *running a trial* that doesn't exist yet?
Not only does it appear you may not have read the article, but don't you think lumping the rape of children with "other kind of tutti-fruitti" is intentionally diminishing the corruption?
Words count. And those who choose words that dumb down the craven sins of pederast priests bear some responsibility in continuing the mayhem.