than February the conclusion that Bragg had in fact determined there was evidence enough to charge was only out there later when Engoron asked about it. I think James did not want to delay the trial for a possibly lengthy back and forth with investigation, denials, motions, denials and appeal of denials just on this issue. I am not aware if a judge on his own can stop a trial, once underway, to do a whole perjury investigation.
Since that portion of the case was about damages it is unlikely, given all of what Engoron saw by that point, that he relied upon much that Weaselnuts said. But the idea of proven fact of knowingly and purposely committing perjury is similar in some ways to an aggravating factor since the witness didn't just "observe" what he lied about but was an integral part of the ongoing fraud. So like an aggravating factor in sentencing is why I raised the question of whether Engoron could have used an admission of perjury despite a previous plea deal to be truthful and cooperate to base a justification for revocation of the business licenses. He did back off from that in his final judgement.
Speculation to be sure about that but he seemed mighty hot about people not being proactive in disclosing the actual findings and happenings in Bragg's office relative to the perjury. So accusations in late October but nothing of conclusive findings until way later by Bragg and then when it does come out people are doing the Sgt. Schultz routine. Like I said I don't know if Engoron himself could have called a halt to the trial while an investigation of the accusation of perjury were investigated and determined factually. I don't know of a case where that happened mid-trial. Usually perjury proceedings would come post-trial. If a judge moves to do an investigation of a defense witness mid-trial and the allegation is unsubstantiated it would hand the defense a big club to claim prejudicial bias and ask for a mistrial. It might not be granted but it certainly can muck things up along the way and be an appellate issue. Typically the system is supposed to work that if you feel a witness is lying you attack the testimony at the time it's given in front of the judge or jury so they, as the trier of fact, can determine credibility. Otherwise we would have trials starting and stopping all the time for "corrections", recalling witnesses etc. along with all kinds of requests to get things in at the end.
Part of that is of course to keep trials from being fishing expeditions and to have a legal system where you bring charges you already have the evidence to prove. The state went ahead with it's case and it's proof and that's all good. I think Engoron was most focused on the defense part/response to the perjury issue since Weaselnuts was the prosecution witness as a result of his earlier plea deal. Did the defense likely orchestrate this gambit with the witness? A good hunch that may never be known.
= new reply since forum marked as read