"We think the court wants to hear and have robust conversations on these issues. Lynch told The Sentinel on Friday the most recent decision to hear arguments indicates the high court's interest in issues it deems of "significant public concern." In Wednesday's announcement, the state Supreme Court said it would hear the appeal, but would limit the scope to the ex parte communications between Bakker and Koch, whether they were administrative in nature and whether Loew is entitled to a new trial. non-substantive) matters."ĭissenting Justice Michael Riordan said reasonable minds could conclude that Bakker was biased in favor of the prosecution. In the majority opinion, Murray wrote that while the appeals court recognized the communications were ex parte, such communications "between a sitting judge and a prosecutor do not warrant a new trial so long as the communications focus on administrative or procedural (i.e. Justices Christopher Murray and Jane Markey were in the majority, saying the emails didn’t provide an advantage to the prosecution. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that decision in a split 2-1 opinion in January this year. More: Allegan man says judge, prosecutor denied him a fair trial More: Judges recused from hearing man’s request for new trial More: Man wins new trial over email exchange between judge, prosecutor "Maybe it wasn't the case, but it creates the appearance of coaching, or at least flagging, 'This is something you're going to need to address,' and that's my worry," Baillargeon said. Generally, ex parte communications - between a judge and only one party in a legal matter - are prohibited by ethics codes for judges and attorneys because they can give an unfair advantage to one side in a case. The two then exchanged several emails about the lack of a medical exam.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |