Yea, he’s running things more like a dictator than a fair judge.
That’s true of most judges, but there are rules for some things.
Just to make sure I understand things: usually judges are supposed to remain neutral and don’t have secret meetings with prosecutors to bully witnesses to testify, right?
The impartiality of the court is kind of essential in an adversarial justice system.
How did the defense learn about the secret meeting, and what happened in the meeting?
Also, does the Georgia Supreme Court often use words like ‘pretermitting’?
The defense won’t say, which is why the lawyer was held in contempt.
And the judge refuses to release the meeting notes.
Yes, I’m asking where the ‘information and belief’ in that petition comes from. Maybe it’s a rhetorical question. That’s a lot of detail about a secret meeting, and at some point — state Supreme Court hearing? — isn’t the petitioner going to have to explain how he knows these things?
Either someone gave him very accurate details about the meeting or he’s bluffing hard, which would probably be a bad idea.
Probably so, but I don’t think protecting the source is the primary concern. I suspect getting the trial judge embarrassed and pressured to step aside was more likely the point.
It definitely wasn’t a bluff because the judge didn’t even remotely deny it. The judge is sure it was someone that was in the meeting, be that Copeland, his lawyer or one of security.
An awesome word that I must now find a way to drop into a work email.
“Under condition (X), the interface will pretermit the message contents”
Several motions to remove the judge have been filed, and now the defense plans to call the judge as a witness!
Yeah, this was an attempt at suppression pure and simple, and I am glad the judge was having none of that bullshit.
The Supreme Court will appreciate the opportunity to crack down on protest, I’m sure.
This took far, far too long. I wonder if Biden’ administration will appeal.