There's a comment by a Brad Hicks halfway down on that article about how ridiculous it was that Judge Wright allowed surprise testimony from the audience. It's even stranger that it was an attorney, who would be acutely aware of the normal consequences of something like this, who ventured to do so!
The comment goes on to say
> (The next place my mind went was, "well, if Prenda wants to establish grounds for appeal, if they need more evidence that the judge is prejudiced against them, didn't they just find the smoking gun?" I mean, if someone with only a peripheral involvement in the case had jumped up in the audience and called The Real Alan Cooper a liar, would the judge have tolerated that?)
but has received no response on Popehat so far. As a layman, I'm wondering the same thing.
Judges have quite a lot of power and independence when it comes to investigating misconduct in their own court-rooms that they don't have in normal cases.
The comment goes on to say
> (The next place my mind went was, "well, if Prenda wants to establish grounds for appeal, if they need more evidence that the judge is prejudiced against them, didn't they just find the smoking gun?" I mean, if someone with only a peripheral involvement in the case had jumped up in the audience and called The Real Alan Cooper a liar, would the judge have tolerated that?)
but has received no response on Popehat so far. As a layman, I'm wondering the same thing.