"Unfortunate hostility toward the government."
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has removed a federal judge from an ongoing trial - the exact reason why is a bit murky, but it seems that the reason is because the judge disagreed with prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.
In an extraordinary maneuver, the federal appeals court in Chicago removed a judge from an ongoing criminal trial that has been marred by disagreements between the prosecutors and the judge.The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provided no explanation in its Tuesday order dismissing U.S. District Judge James Holderman from the jury trial of a man facing drug charges. The court said an opinion would be forthcoming.
The appeals court intervened after U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald took the unusual step of stopping the trial twice to ask the court to review the judge's decision to exclude critical fingerprint evidence against the defendant.
In his second petition to the appellate court, Fitzgerald called out Holderman for "unfortunate hostility toward the government."
I'm sure there is more to the story, and there is plenty going on behind the scenes, but what? It appears that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is removing a judge from a case because the judge disagreed with the prosecutor. What kind of message does that send - is the trial judge in charge of his courtroom or the prosecutor? Will the next judge, or any other judge in the 7th Circuit now be more careful to agree with and get along with the prosecutors in their courtroom?
Has anyone ever seen a judge removed from a case for disagreeing with a defense attorney?
