Well, suppose I went to college at the same time someone in the administration was taking bribes - and later I was a lawyer in the case one way or another but had never crossed paths with the perps. I just went to the same school they worked at. What would it matter? But you see, they must be saying he is a witness, so they need to lay their evidence on the table or shut up. Otherwise it's our old friend guilt by association.
Do you have any idea how many seminarians attended at this time. I admit I have no idea but I believe it is a reasonable assumption that it was a very small number. Small enough, in fact, that the seminarians knew each other.
Further, your analogy is rediculous - apples to oranges.
The defense attorney should have disclosed the fact that he attended the same seminary at the same time as the alleged abuse took place because he personally may have known the victims and the accused and thus may have pertinent information about the case which could cause him to be called as a witness.
That’s what the judge is saying and it’s not a difficult concept to grasp. But once again we hear from RC apologists that everyone is wrong but Rome.
The most absurd part of this entire article is that the idiotic defense of “anti-Catholic bias” must be coded into the DNA of RCs at birth since we hear it every day from Free Republic all the way to Philadelphia.
Maybe it’s part of the regenerative baptism mojo. Regardless, it’s a common whine from bullies who lack a sound defense for their faith...and their clients.