(05-31-2024, 07:15 PM)copycat Wrote:

(05-31-2024, 07:04 PM)mikesez Wrote: That's what appeals are for.  Judges always have to make decisions about what arguments the lawyers can present to the jury because that then becomes the questions that the judge will ask the jury at the end.

But this judge did not do a good job.

I am amazed/curious/stupified et al that you can admit that this trial was a sham yet still defend it.

The jury did their job.  The judge presented them with loaded questions but the answers were yes.  I thought at least one juror would call BS on it, but alas. 

There are three other cases, where the facts and law are clearer.  In the GA case, the prosecutor has been overly ambitious and indicted too many co-conspirators, so that takes time, and in the federal cases the judges are doing a bad job in that they refuse to issue final rulings on what can and can not be presented to a jury.

Sometimes you get a judge who has no caution, and sometimes you get a judge who is too cautious.  

So I'll definitely agree with you that he should never have been tried this way in New York, but in return I expect you to agree with me that by now trials should have already been completed in the other three cases.

---