Quote:
Originally Posted by Barcey
So she emphasized that no final decision had been made, she admitted to not reading all the evidence and many of the affidavits yet but she had read enough that she believed that the DoJ would be able to prove their case. Hardly a smoking gun that she was biased or proof that she had written most of her decision prior to the trial.
|
Actually the statement doesn't indicate that she believed that the DoJ would be able to prove their case, just that there there is enough evidence to justify the trial.
No case goes to trial if the plaintiffs don't present evidence to the judge before the trial at the preliminary hearings that justifies having a trial to begin with. You would find statements like the ones that this judge made from any judges before every trial unless the defendants' have waived their right to this preliminary hearing.