Not that the defense would ever want to compromise the trial or delay the trial or confuse the trial or subvert the trial. Nah.
Let's think about this for a moment. Either the defense attorney was a seminarian at the same time and same place the abuse was occurring or he wasn't. That's not too difficult to discern.
And if it is true that he did attend the same seminary at the same time when the abuse took place, don't you think that's a pretty salient fact he should have disclosed so as to avoid a mistrial down the line?
Not that the defense would ever want to compromise the trial or delay the trial or confuse the trial or subvert the trial. Nah.
Let's think about this for a moment. Either the defense attorney was a seminarian at the same time and same place the abuse was occurring or he wasn't. That's not too difficult to discern.
And if it is true that he did attend the same seminary at the same time when the abuse took place, don't you think that's a pretty salient fact he should have disclosed so as to avoid a mistrial down the line?
They sure would have liked that, wouldn't they?
I can't believe for a minute that the defense attorney didn't realize that. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that having him as the attorney was part of the plan all along, just for a contingency. They HAD to know that he had attended the seminary. He had to know that that would be a conflict of interest and cause a mistrial. If he didn't, he has no business being a lawyer.
That probably explains why he blew a gasket over the issue and tried to make it personal.
If he is a defense lawyer how does that equal a mistrial....presumably the defendant gets the best defense he can...and if he wants this man, so be it.