The attorneys for Fairbanks also filed a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Court. That court refused to consider the case, but then sent it to a Superior Court judge for consideration. Last week, that Superior Court judge ordered a delay of the trial until yesterday.
But with the federal court case still pending, both Brennan and Grimes expressed concern that the defense was trying to “hedge their bets” by creating a new avenue of appeal in the event that either Fairbanks was convicted by a jury, or didn’t like the proposed disposition the judge was considering.
Both the judge and the prosecutor said that resolving the case or going to trial would first require the defense to withdraw its complaint to the federal judge.
The attorneys for Fairbanks then left the courthouse, with a room full of police witnesses as well as another woman, waiting to testify. It turned out they had gone straight to federal court, where they filed a motion renewing their request to transfer the case.
In that motion, they made several claims about Brennan, which he angrily rebutted yesterday after reading the federal filing, which included allegations that the judge was holding Fairbanks “indefinitely,” that he refused to schedule a new date in the case, and that he was “punishing” Fairbanks.
Brennan called the accusations “blatantly inaccurate” and questioned how the defense lawyers could have made those representations to a federal judge.
Matthew Walsh said only that he left court with a “different” impression than the judge.
Matthew Walsh told the judge that he left court “in a hell-fire rush because I felt justice was not being done.”
“Maybe brim and fire is not the way to approach this job,” Brennan responded.
Courts reporter Julie Manganis can be reached at 978-338-2521, via email at email@example.com or on Twitter @SNJulieManganis.