Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
So the defendant can win a new trial on appeal after they're fired, sued, and disbarred for conspiring with an evil judge, of course. 
Hey, Perry Mason did it all the time, embarrasing the DA and the police by dramatically solving the case in mid-trial...
Snark aside: it does happen but only rarely under explicit instructions from the defendant and only when the evidence of "innocence" convicts them of a graver, more heinous crime. Like a habitual thief being charged of a burglary at a time he was murdering somebody else. Again, you see it mostly on cop shows.  |
Yes, but this would be evidence that the defendant wouldn't want coming up at trial either. There is no logical reason for the defense to keep evidence of the defendant's innocence to show at the trial and not the pretrial. So naturally the judge would have seen all the evidence for the defendant's innocence that is ever going to be shown by the defense during the pretrial. There is no reason to say that the judge makes decisions without seeing the evidence.
The point of the procedure is that the plaintiffs and the defendants try to settle the dispute themselves during the pretrial, so they each show the evidence for their arguments while trying to discover as much evidence against their opponent's arguments. The judge's input is required only if the two sides can't agree.