◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 93 Court refused to declare them hostile witnesses or allow them to be impeached or cross examined by Plaintiffs’ counsel.... The Court repeatedly refused to hear the motions, and angrily postponed hearing the contempt and sanctions motions until after the trial.... the court (in sustaining a specious objection by Defendant ... the Court grasped at various straws in attempting to justify his baseless and punitive ruling. ... The Court’s arbitrary refusal to allow discovery concerning GROTH’s alleged informant and his obstruction of meaningful cross-examination. ... The Court, in essence, scuttled the entire Plaintiffs’ rebuttal case .... The entire record demonstrates that the trial judge was not an impartial judge representing the impersonal authority of the law, but was both an advocate from the bench for the Defendants’ cause, and an “activist seeking combat” with Plaintiffs’ counsel ... Despite this powerful evidence of racism and prejudice against the Plaintiffs, the Court refused to allow lawyer voir dire. ... The Court tightly controlled the voir dire, and attempted to select a jury which he could manipulate to agree with his view of the case and return a verdict for the Defendants ... In stark contrast to the treatment afforded the Plaintiffs and their evidence, the trial court aided the Defen- dants and supported their cause throughout the trial, in its rulings and remarks from the bench. ... unduly restricted questioning in key areas... . using the pretext that they hadn’t been questioned with the sketch on direct. . . The Court, on its own added to the prejudicial information im- parted to the jury during the course of the trial... . He [the judge] repeatedly threatened con- tempt in order to discourage Plaintiffs’ right to be heard and to make a record.... Defendants’ lawyers were allowed almost free reign in the Court- room. ... Constant interruption from the Bench, and frivolous objections from the Defense counsel (encouraged by the Court’s obvious attitudes) diluted the strength of Plaintiffs’ evidence. The at-