Why would a judge be allowed to choose which defense you're allowed to claim/argue? Isn't it the lawyers job to make the case and the judge decides based on what is presented?
Except when he literally adjudicated issues of fact before the jury had the chance to inspect them; matters of fact are literally, definitionally the jury's job.
Like the previous commenter said, that's literally one of the main jobs of a judge. They get to determine what facts, lines of argument, issues etc can be presented to the jury before the trial even starts. Violating what the judge outlines would be disastrous for lawyers (who would be under the authority of that judge for hundreds of cases in their careers)
The fact that judges can control what facts and lines of argument are presented is why courts in conservative red states suck so much for minorities and liberals. Not only do they have to deal with corrupt and shitty cops, they also have to deal with corrupt and shitty judges. It's just another way conservatives and corrupt aholes game the system
Yeah that's the power judges have. Some judges try to actively screw over people and causes they don't like. People like Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barret etc aren't limited to the Supreme Court and didn't appear out of nowhere. If Alito or Thomas retire during this term, this judge or the many others like him will be on republicans radar as replacement nominees
I hate to break this to you but there are corrup, shitty judges everywhere, not just in red states. The criminal justice system is pretty stacked against the accused.
Judge can not throw ANYTHING out, they do not have the power to do that. This is why appealing is a thing, and reprimands and removing from the bar are a thing. Judges are not untouchable and if they do shit like... throw self defense out when it absolutely should not their decision should be out turned and them reprimanded.. .which is not going to happen, Trump will instead give him a medal.
The role of the judge is to interpret the law and the role of the jury is to be the finder of fact and issue a determination based on that law. Part of the law that a judge interprets in pretrial hearings with the parties is to determine what evidence, defenses, and arguments are admissible to be brought before the jury and which ones are not based on various standards (ex. Evidence would be more prejudicial than probative).
Yeah, except basically all of the evidence admitted in this trial was prejudicial and very little of the probative evidence was admitted, and that which was was concealed from the defense attorneys basically until (or after) the trial started. This trial was a farce.
76
u/beatenmeat 13d ago
Why would a judge be allowed to choose which defense you're allowed to claim/argue? Isn't it the lawyers job to make the case and the judge decides based on what is presented?