I love that scene. She’s so understanding.
Look at the date more closely.
Yeah, that sounds completely inappropriate on the defense attorney’s part. You can’t just go making allegations like that without evidence. And besides, how would he have found out? Obviously neither the judge nor the prosecutor would have told him, which means that, if it happened, it had to have come from the witness. But if the witness is willing to tell the defense attorney (in a situation where it’d be clear it was him telling it), then he’d also be willing to tell it on the stand.
The only reasonable conclusion is that the defense attorney was just making the whole thing up. And how is that not contempt of court?
Some South African dude laid off some Australians from his US company, but there was a miscalculation in terms of AU$->US$ that netted the laid-off employees $70k, which the SA dude now wants back.
The idea of a Scarlett Johansson robot is disturbing enough to begin with without bringing a date into the equation.
Well, I for one would date her, if she’d let me.
The real one, not the robot.
I’m not sharing with Colin Jost.
He wouldn’t needed the robot if he could get a date.
He wouldn’t need a date if he could get the robot.
No one has asked the most important question. Can the robot do housework?
Unfortunately, for the judge, he admitted that the meeting happened (though I suspect your tongue is in cheek).
Bah! Humbug!
Oh, was there some other article that had that in it? Because the one that @Smapti linked doesn’t actually say that. It has the judge saying that the defense attorney has information he shouldn’t have, but he doesn’t say that the information is true.
What could that possibly mean if it isn’t an acklowedgement that the meeting took place?
It’s the judge calling the attorney’s bluff, because there’s no way that he could have legitimately heard of such a thing. Also note that the judge can’t come out and deny that the meeting happened for the same reason he can’t come out and admit it: If you want to be able to keep meetings confidential, then you can’t ever say one way or the other if they happened.
Saying there was nothing improper about a meeting wasn’t a hypothetical- it was an admission (if the judge wanted to make his statement a hypothetical, he could have).
And judges and prosecutors shouldn’t be having secret meetings with witnesses, anyway. Ex parte meetings are forbidden - so saying that the ex parte meeting was not improper is ridiculous on its face.
It sounds rather like the judge is asking the attorney to implicate himself in a crime. Isn’t that kind of a no-no?
If you watch the video of the trial, the judge says the meeting happened and was proper.
And per the Post, the prosecutor’s office also acknowledged that the meeting happened
Adriane Love, an assistant Fulton County district attorney and the lead prosecutor on the case, also denied any wrongdoing, stating for the record that the meeting between the judge, prosecutors and Copeland had been held to address the contempt claim against Copeland.
A number of attorneys on the Internet have pointed out how improper the meeting was and how it’s apparent that the judge admits that there was a meeting. The entire video can be seen here, which is cued up to Mike’s comments on how entirely inappropriate the judge’s actions were. The stream starts about half way through.
Judges simply should not be having an ex parte meeting (An ex parte communication occurs when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks or writes to or otherwise communicates directly with the judge about the issues in the case without the other parties’ knowledge) with the prosecution and a witness who has already been sworn in during the middle of a court case. Quite a few attorneys have all expressed how shocking and completely inappropriate this is.
The guess is that the witness’s lawyer told the attorney in question.