Court Opinion

ID: 9756175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 21:12:06.349103+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:15.179320
License: Public Domain

PAPADAKOS, Justice,
concurring.
With a great deal of reluctance, I must join because the rationale employed by the Majority makes eminent good sense. The indifference of the District Attorney’s Office shown in this case to the scheduling of cases by the Court in its effort to keep its head above water and ahead of a backbreaking load cannot inure to the benefit of a defendant who suffers no injustice from the delays of the assistant district attorney who cavalierly exemplified a gross indifference to the proper demands of Judge Wekselman. In effect, the assistant district attorney told the Judge, “Sit on your thumbs until I finish in another court. Then I’ll be over to try this case.” Judge Wekselman did not double-schedule this assistant district attorney. Judge Staisey did *573not schedule this assistant district attorney. The District Attorney’s Office double scheduled the assistant district attorney. We all believe in cooperation, but cooperation is not a one-way street.