If we want an unbiased judge, that would be inappropriate, yes.
—
(a) To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory, and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.
(b) If these requirements as to allegations and offer of proof are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no hearing is required, but if the remaining content is insufficient, the defendant is entitled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to a hearing.
Franks v. Delaware
supreme.justia.com
She is bound by the requirements set by SCOTUS in Franks v Delaware. If the defense does not meet the threshold for a hearing, they don’t meet the threshold and don’t get the hearing. Offering a “gimme” is undermining the judicial process and would be ethically inappropriate. Having a truly unbiased judge results in rulings like this.
JMO