Yes, it's a case related to Epstein. But it's really a run-of-the-mill investor protection lawsuit like thousands each year.
It's also day seven of her being assigned the case. She may have sent out some preliminary inquiries to start thinking about a trial schedule. She definitely didn't make any decisions that have the potential to expose whatever criminal mastermind people believe to be lurking in the shadows.
Later in the trial, a judge's recusal could have resulted in a mistrial, potentially delayed it for years, or even caused plaintiffs to run of money or patience to try again.
But at the very beginning, there is no reason to believe she is different than any other judge who would be assigned in her stead, and the schedule would barely be affected.
> But at the very beginning, there is no reason to believe she is different than any other judge who would be assigned in her stead, and the schedule would barely be affected.
The judge that would be assigned in her stead is different in that they will operate with the knowledge that their predecessor had their family murdered, quite possibly because of the case they're now handling. How is that not obvious?
It's also day seven of her being assigned the case. She may have sent out some preliminary inquiries to start thinking about a trial schedule. She definitely didn't make any decisions that have the potential to expose whatever criminal mastermind people believe to be lurking in the shadows.
Later in the trial, a judge's recusal could have resulted in a mistrial, potentially delayed it for years, or even caused plaintiffs to run of money or patience to try again.
But at the very beginning, there is no reason to believe she is different than any other judge who would be assigned in her stead, and the schedule would barely be affected.