What about judge's
ethical obligations

A careful reader will notice several unhappy things about this AP story from the NY Times about legal motions re: the depositions of Cardinal Bernard Law.

For one thing, the headline distorts the message of the story. Defense lawyers did not ask to "halt" -- which implies stop forever -- the cardinal's testimony entirely. They asked the judge to "delay" it until after -- as I read it -- the grand jury completes its investigation. To be precise, they asked that the depositions be postponed, not quashed, as the headline suggests. Big difference. And headline scanners would move on with the impression the defense was trying pervert the course of justice, which makes a pretty good case for labeling this as "editorializing in the head."

Inside the story, the judge is reported to have criticized the defense attorneys on the grounds they had known long before that Law's depos were coming and that they failed ot make timely motions for the delay.

But we can also infer from this that the judge also had known about the impending depos for sometime and that, given past perfromances, there was a clear and present danger that the plaintiff's attorneys would likely use the the opportunity for "court steps" propagandizing, staged to influence the grand jurors.

Now, it's not the judge's job to craft the defense's strategy for them. Nor is it the judge's job to assist the plaintiffs lawyers' causes, either.

Experienced, unbiased and fair judges know, or should know, that cunning lawyers often can foresee bad situations developing -- situations that might enhance their position -- and silently welcome the advantages to be gained.

Experienced, unbiased and fair judges also know, or should know, that they have a duty to act to forestall this kind of couthouse politicking by imposing schedules that do not -- so far as possible -- benefit one side or the other.

Judges who don't, can't or won't provide such "just in case" advice and guidance should be challenged. Vigorously.