It should pointed out that prosecutors were also excused. While I agree that it’s not something that judges should make a habit of doing, but in this instance there doesn’t appear to be anything improper that went on, like gathering testimony or asking for pleas or ruling on evidence in particular cases. You can be a purist I suppose and say that this was categorically wrong, but I can’t really fault the judge’s intentions here.
Since you seem to appreciate the "intentions" of the judge, perhaps you would explain the reason for ordering these defendants' attorneys out of the courtroom.
I asked before whether the court reporter recorded the "speech" or whatever you want to call it.
Would one of the defendant's attorneys be justified in objecting to this process? Would you want a higher court to approve it? I find that the idea that the judge would not want to "embarass" somebody who has just been convicted of a crime, to be an embarassment of the legal process.
What would happen to a judge who pointed out, during such a closed proceeding, that the defendants had violated one of the Ten Commandments? How would we know if the proceeding was closed?
Judges have been removed for not being impartial as is their duty? How can one assess the impartiality of the judge if the proceeding is closed?
If the legal community as a whole decides that such proceedings can occur under some circumstances, what will the mechanism be to insure that such proceedings occur only under the approved circumstances?
It's really hard to avoid the fact that the disinfectant we count on in our legal processes is "the light of day". If you can't observe that the right things are happening, you can pretty much count on them not happening.