Originally Posted by Biggy2

"First, they filed a motion to disqualify Judge J. Dale Durrance from presiding over the case, claiming that Durrance suffers from extreme visual impairment.

"Defendant Wilson believes that he cannot obtain a fair hearing and/or trial before Judge Durrance as a result of the Judge's visual impairment, which Defendant Wilson fears will prevent Judge Durrance from fully and fairly evaluating the allegedly obscene materials in according with the appropriate legal standards," the motion said.

Judge Durrance denied that motion."

--------------------------------------
I am not a lawyer, but I don't know if that was the smartest way to start it off by questioning whether the judge could see. Unless his vision was truly that impaired, I think its a poor move in trying to win the judge over. Later in the article, it didn't mention he had difficulty watching the clips on a laptop in front of him.. did they really expect the judge to go "you're right, i can't see."

I would've brought up some of the other points first, like the fact they didn't have a warrant on the pictures acquired. To me it would make sense to hit the strongest argument first, then chip away with some not so strong points (like the vision argument) to shake the confidence of the case... To me it seems like they just pissed off the judge from the start.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think its right to revoke the bail without the alleged obscene material being reviewed. Ultimately, I do think they will win an appeal, but I wouldn't be happy if those were my lawyers.