Hadley didn't stand to gain any tactical advantage from such a delay, especially after his client finally waived speedy trial.  He seems to have truly needed the time to prepare his case.

The defense's work is open to question in several areas.  Hadley and Davids reacted poorly to the MacDonell surprise; they needed days, not minutes, to prepare adequately to question the professor, and even if they had no chance of getting that time, they ought to have demanded it in order to create an appeals issue on the record.  During the discovery phase of the case, some important questions remained unanswered in the depositions of Felton Thomas and Edward Williams: we do not know who accompanied Thomas on his aborted trip to Orlando, to report to the sheriff; we do not know specifically where Edward Williams went when he visited the Winter Garden Inn after leaving the store, or what he did at the motel.

Also, the defense seems to have failed to grasp fully the significance of the Nolans' testimony, and the decision not to put the Fickes on the stand probably was a miscalculation.  In Hadley's closing argument he introduced several threads of an alternative theory of the crime, but he never fully developed it.

But all these observations occur only after months of leisurely examination of the record in this most complex case.  As Hadley approached trial, he and the rest of the defense team were under constant pressure of time.  Today they remember it almost as a frenzy. The prosecution did not turn over its discovery material until barely six weeks before the trial begun.  Any criticism of Hadley's work must be made in the light of Paul's repeated refusal to grant even a two-week continuance.

Simple fairness alone dictates that the defendant in a capital trial should get the benefit of the doubt on such a relatively minor matter. (And, if not fairness, the people's interest in ensuring fair trials.)  The reaction of the defense psychologist, Stephen Robertson, is probably typical of most laymen: A man's life is at stake, what's the rush?

We have to take on faith, or leave aside, the question of whether Judge Paul was hostile to the defense, as Hadley alleged.  A trial transcript is unsuited for displaying such nuances.  Adverse rulings, even a consistent pattern of adverse rulings, are not proof of prejudice.

The judge's defenders would probably point out that appeals courts upheld the judge on all matters, save one: the admission of character witnesses in the penalty phase.

That Paul's rulings have stood is no surprise.  Appeals courts grant judges wide latitude in their conduct of a trial.  One of the reasons trial judges have such discretion is that they traditionally have avoided the appearance of conflict of interest.  Generations of judges have excused themselves from cases that involved far more tenuous connections than the one that existed here.