Readers have to understand what this means, for if the jury convicts Ms. Craft, the verdict will be appealed and all of the information is going to become public and be given to an appeals court. My sense is that given what the prosecution and the judge have done, the justices will be horrified by the legal abuses that have occurred in that courtroom.
This will mean much more scrutiny for the prosecutors and House, and that scrutiny I can assure you will endanger their careers. Thus, I only can conclude that these men are willing to have their legal careers wrecked in order to pursue a conviction against a woman that they have to know is innocent of the charges. We are talking about three men who are running toward the edge of a cliff at full speed and apparently have no intention of trying to stop.
Furthermore, given Dr. Nancy Aldridge's powerful testimony today and the disgraceful way in which the prosecutors reacted to one blow after another to their questionable theories, I wonder if there even remains any real chance of a guilty verdict. However, with the trial not being over, I still have some questions that I believe need to be asked, which I do here. I then explain my reasoning behind them.
1. Why has the defense not been permitted to tell the jury that Laurie Evans of the CAC (and who conducted interviews of the child accusers) was prohibited by Judge Marie Williams of Hamilton County to have any contact at all with the Henke children? If the role of the prosecution (according to the guidelines as listed by the Georgia Bar) is to seek the truth, why has the prosecution been adamant that this information be hidden from the jury?
This was the hypothetical person to which Dr. Lorandos referred today in his questioning of Dr. Aldridge, and Chris Arnt objected by throwing his books down on the table. (House did not admonish him for this childish act.)
Readers have to remember that the Bar rules of hiding exculpatory evidence are very strict, and prosecutors who hide that evidence (or use a judge who seems to be in the tank to help them hide it from a jury) can be subject to disbarment.
Ironically, just minutes after House ruled (because of a prosecution objection) that Dr. Lorandos could not ask hypothetical questions, Arnt asked Dr. Aldridge a hypothetical question. The defense objected and House overruled, stating his usual line, "He's on cross." (House does not give the defense the same privileges when they are on cross.)
2. Have the prosecutors had ex parte conversations with the judge on this case and not reported them to the defense team?
According to the Code of Ethic for Prosecutors of the Georgia Bar, if either defense attorneys or prosecutors have ex parte conversations with the judge, they are to make it known to the other party. Have either Gregor or Arnt held any conversations with Brian House about this case and NOT notify the defense? If they have had those conversations and not reported them, this not only demonstrates prejudice on behalf of the judge, but also is a violation that can result in reprimand.
(As I noted in this post, I believe that the prosecutors have committed violations that are serious enough to earn disbarment. One of the pitfalls of working in an atmosphere in which someone is not held accountable is that one becomes too blatant in committing serious violations and ultimately leaves a trail that investigators can follow.)
3. Have the prosecutors, prosecution witnesses, and the judge had any extracurricular activities together, such as backyard cookouts, during the duration of the trial?
One would hope that House, Arnt, Gregor, and some prosecution witnesses have not been socializing during this trial, as that would violate a number of rules for both judges and prosecutors. I have no evidence this has happened and trust that it won't but nonetheless, I decided to ask this question, anyway.
4. Has Judge House reported to the defense his alleged ex parte conversation he had with Sandra Lamb allegedly two days before she testified?
House is obligated by law to let the defense know of this conversation, if it happened. He did not do so before Lamb testified, and from what I can tell, he still has not said anything to the defense team about the alleged incident. While that by itself would not constitute "reversible error," nonetheless it does tell us that judge might be reckless in one area of the law, which would harm his credibility.
5. When Len Gregor received the email and attachment of Dr. Ann Hazzard's summary, did he open the email or did he just delete it and then claim he never got it? Or, if the answer is neither, what happened to the email and attachment?
Gregor claimed, as an officer of the court, that he never received the attachment, yet there is no doubt it was sent, so it should be quite easy to check Gregor's emails to see if there is an attachment. (Somehow, I don't think this email accidentally was sent to Gregor's "junk" email file.) Is Gregor willing to let an independent party check his email? It should be easy enough to see if he received anything from Dr. Lorandos and the defense. Likewise, I would like to check the "sent items" in Dr. Lorandos' email files. If the file shows it was sent (and it did not bounce back), then someone is not telling the truth.
Because Gregor claimed not to have received the material, and that lack of reception resulted in Dr. Hazzard's testimony being truncated, his statement fell into the category of "material fact." Here is what Rule 3.3 says:
(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:The maximum penalty for violating this rule is disbarment.
(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;
6. Why has Judge House permitted Arnt and Gregor to engage in behavior that has disrupted the proceedings and to do things that destroy the decorum of the trial?
Today, once again, we saw the prosecutors constantly engaging in objection after objection, and Arnt slammed his books down on the table, yet House said nothing.
The State Bar of Georgia Rule 3.5 states:
A lawyer shall not, without regard to whether the lawyer represents a client in the matter:A footnote adds another important element that clearly applies to this trial:
(c) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
 While a lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge, the lawyer's actions should avoid reciprocation. Fairness and impartiality of the trial process is strengthened by the lawyer's protection of the record for subsequent review and this preserves the professional integrity of the legal profession by patient firmness. (emphasis mine)Indeed, that is precisely what the defense has done. Despite having to put up with childish antics from Facebook and The Man, and despite the overt hostility from House, who makes even no pretense of being fair, the defense has soldiered on and done a remarkable job.
7. Why were supporters of Tonya Craft this evening after the trial told the front door of the courthouse was locked and forced to leave by the back door, but the prosecution's supporters and witnesses were permitted to leave via the front door? Why have prosecution witnesses and supporters been permitted to bring food, water, cell phones, and reading material into the courthouse, while everyone else is forced to go through security and can bring nothing into the building?
One person sent this to me tonight:
We got to the courthouse late Monday evening, just in time to watch people start coming out. Interestingly, Craft's supporters and legal team were only allowed to exit from the back entrance, being told the front door was locked. However, we noticed the usual suspects leaving out the front..Sandra Lamb (and sister), Sherry Wilson, Jerry and Kelly McDonald, Joal Henke, and several other supporters of the state.This clearly is an action by the State of Georgia that says people are not to be treated equally under the law.
While I might have other questions for the prosecution and House, what I have listed so far are germane to the trial, and if the answer to any of these questions is "yes," then we have seen a judge and two officers of the court -- Arnt and Gregor -- perpetrate a fraud.
And those who perpetuate frauds should be disbarred and NEVER be permitted to work in the law profession again.