[Cboldt]

IMO, having a immunity hearing before trial is low risk, but that's in large part because I believe the rules allow defendant to make his case without being subjected to cross examination. If the judge rejects the motion, defendant can appeal. In a sense, it give defendant two bites at the apple. This is the norm, FWIW, in Florida. Many defendants assert self defense, and get an opinion from the judge.

If we believe what O'Mara said in his press availability yesterday, he has no intention to ask the judge to decide the case. I do agree that defendant's right to an immunity hearing isn't extinguished for failure to move for this before criminal trial, and therefore he can have an immunity hearing "during" (after presentation of state's case, after presentation of defense case), or after the trial (jury returns hung, or an acquittal, or guilty). But O'Mara said that his client has decided to "take the decision away from the judge" (my words, not O'Mara's), because his client believes the public will be more accepting of a jury's result.

[Hillarys Gate Cult]

I get the impression that the defense thinks this judge wouldn’t be a good bet to get a positive SYG ruling. The prosecution could also use it against him in a trial if the judge didn’t rule for SYG immunity. In this case it looks like the risk is higher than normal not to get a favorable result.