Specifically, Lesavage alleges that the trial judge showed prejudice in rescheduling the hearing and not questioning the district attorney to see if a subpoena had been either issued or served. These arguments are not compelling. First, had the trial judge dismissed Lesavage's case as a result of Tomas's absence, the district attorney would merely have reissued the charges. Thus, there was nothing prejudicial with regard to the trial judge's rescheduling of the motion to suppress. Furthermore, the trial judge was entitled to accept the district attorney's assertion that a subpoena had been issued.
Lawyers are subject to discipline, including disbarment, for rule violations.
Courts and judges depend on lawyers to speak and represent themselves with candor. Accordingly, the trial court could accept the veracity of the district attorney's assertion that a subpoena had indeed been issued. Additionally, Lesavage asserts that the trial judge showed prejudice when he required Lesavage to attend both a hearing and a conference, causing Lesavage to miss two days of work. While Lesavage may have felt this to be an inconvenience, the trial court was well within its discretion in compelling Lesavage's attendance. See 971.04, Stats.