Media Coalition advocate, Thomas Burke
3: 30 PM PST, Thomas Burke, from Media Coalition
First brings up the claim that since Walker’s objectivity is in question, we should have access to the tapes.
Rhinehart stops him and urges him to stick to the point: which is the issue of the video tapes.
The guy is in over his head.
Hawkins wants to know whether lawyers can rely on the promises of a trial judge, when he makes a promise. Mr. Burke doesn’t seem to understand the question. He keeps saying they had the right to object and didn’t take it, but they already dealt with this issue exhaustively in Olson’s arguments. Hawkins is worried about what happens if the assurances given by a judge don’t mean anything. As he said, “I have tried cases for 25 years. When a trial judge makes a promise that X will happen, then X will happen.”
Rhinehart is going after him: the word of the court is supposed to mean something.
If circumstances have changed, then….
I don’t get what this poor guy is trying to say. He has an amalgamation of Olson’s arguments, without Olson’s ability to defend himself.
Smith: “Walker says, ‘the potential for public broadcast has been eliminated.’ So why didn’t the Proponents bring forward more witnesses?” So, Smith seems to say that Walker did welsch on his promises, and that this matters.
Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D.
Loading ...
