This message was self-deleted by its author

[JDPriestly]

145. They were arguing very basic considerations like relevancy.

The jury was not there. The judge was deciding based on procedural rules and law what evidence and allegations are to be admitted. He was making decisions based on the law. He was excluding or admitting facts based on the rules of the courts and the laws of evidence. He was not deciding which version of the facts is true. That is not his (in this case her) job.

As I explained, during a trial the attorneys present their different theories about the case. They also present evidence including witnesses and physical evidence hoping that the evidence they present will "prove" their view of the case and the issues.

The jury sees and hears the evidence, deliberates, may sometimes ask questions and then decides which facts are true and which are not and draws its conclusions and ultimately arrives at a verdict -- if it can.