It could indicate that judges are overeager to convict, or it could indicate that prosecutors are unwilling to try someone they aren't really damn sure of. Or a combination of the two, or probably a bunch of other reasons.
It's not normal or appropriate for a judge to include that in his judgment. I don't think he brings up the lawyers to show that he seems guilty, but to show that he definitely is taking this seriously. Plaintiff has really good evidence, suspect has lawyered up in a BIG way, and the defendant is just kind of doing nothing. Whether he's guilty or not, I think the judge is trying to point out to them that this is a major case and they're the only ones not acting like it.
That is very possible, and I’d say the most likely answer here. It still doesn’t look great, but it’s not the kind of thing you’d expect to compromise the judge’s impartiality.
For a case that could potentially embarrass the state, I'd think the prosecution would try hard to make sure the case appears on the right judge's docket.
Isn't this a free option? If it's enough to get the judge swapped isn't it enough to overturn a guilty verdict? They get an opportunity to try the case, the possibility of winning. Then they have an easy path to a retrial.
Being the victim of judicial corruption can't be that bad for their cause.
In an adversarial system, you know that at the very least your opponent is checking your cases (you should also assume the Judge/clerks are too, but I never practiced enough in State courts to know how well that holds. In Federal District, it's absolutely true). Usually it's for incredibly small things, like unquoted/cited distinguishing remarks, later cases reversing the decision, and misquotes. So a whole case not existing is going to stand out like crazy.
Occam's Razor here is that this person was lazy, ignorant, careless, stupid, or any combination of those. To be intentionally fraudulent in this circumstance is the equivalent of trying to steal a gun from a cop. You're fucking with the one person in society who definitely has the training, motivation, and willingness to stop you.
IIRC judges aren't exactly lining up to throw the book at the feds when they misbehave. I'd love to to hear from someone more well informed though -- do judges just look the other way?
Perhaps contempt. Perhaps a disregard for public safety. Who knows? It of course was outrageous, but there was certainly something going on that pushed the judge's buttons. Because, every traffic violator didn't get that sentence, right?
Indeed, the situation reeks of a rubber-stamp mentality among the court staff involved with this case. Having worked in law enforcement in the past, I've seen first hand how some judges can just blindly approve whatever warrant or order comes across their desk without so much as a cursory glance at the details, consequences be damned.
I think the judge is saying they bungled the case so bad that an appeal will be a waste of the courts time. Sounds like the warning is more of an admonishment to the DOJ for wasting the courts time with confusing and unconvincing case.
reply