I was rereading the body of the thread and was struck by this.....
Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."
The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."
She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."
Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.
"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."
I noticed that the lawyer didn't deny the facts the judge stated, but rather that he was incensed that someone told on him. "How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office.
How dare they indeed.
You know, during the trial of the NYC WTC bombers, when they were trying the guys who were accused of the bombing, the person who worked for the truck rental place was asked who rented the vehicle and threw the courtroom into an uproar when he pointed out someone in the jury box.
Nice way to either load the jury or declare a mistrial.
In this case, because the defense lawyer himself was so closely connected to the situation, it should have, by all rights, disqualified him from being connected with the case in a conflict of interest.
It seems that what bothered him the most is that some ratted on him and exposed what he knew all along.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was intentional. That way, the whole thing would have to start over from scratch, giving more opportunity for it to be dropped on some technicality.
I don’t want any action by the judge, the prosecutor or the defense team to lead to a conviction being overturned on appeal. That is my concern with the conduct of all parties. I do think the Judge was way out of line. If the defense had not seen the allegations regarding his time in seminary he has every right to be upset.
But the important thing is if guilty verdicts are overturned it is the victims who suffer. I want the trials to be like Caeser’s wife. If the jury finds any of the priests guilty I want that verdict to stick and for full sentences to be carried out.
One cannot be both a witnesses in a trial and an advocate and any appearance that they might be one eliminates their position as the other.
Isn’t that what the judge was saying? and No, and it wasn’t denied.
If the judge has some charges to make she should get on it ~ and let another judge run this trial. This particular conflict between a judge and a lawyer goes to the heart of our system of jurisprudence. The judge doesn't work for Spain and the lawyer doesn't work for the Mafia (that we know of). Yet, the judge has acted pretty much like a Spanish or Italian magistrate.
All I can say is WOW. Anyone know her connection to the suit against the Boy Scouts?
Good thought
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it was intentional. That way, the whole thing would have to start over from scratch, giving more opportunity for it to be dropped on some technicality.
Exactly. This accounts for the judge's fury. The defense team's lapse in ethics is that profound.
For at least 500 years Rome has believed that the end justifies the means. Whatever it takes.