Radovan Karadciz.

[123everton]

The judge in his trial sat through the whole of the Milosevic trial, as an observer or an arbiter I don't know, is his presence as the presiding judge prejudiced by his prior engagement in the earlier trial?

[jake-the-peg]

That's a difficult question - If I were you I'd try law.

Normally I'd say No. But this isn't English law and it's not a common criminal case.

Obviously a judge is presumed able to discount inadmissible evidence in his decision making otherwise as soon as lawyers had a discussion about the admissibility of evidence you'd have to start the trial again because the judge might be prejudiced by it.

You'd have to make sure that nobody could be tried by a judge who might have tried them before. It'd be chaos

I suspect the same holds true here.

[123everton]

It is complex, if the judge had come to view the idea of a greater Serbska as a shared political aim, he may feel that genocide was mutually agreed tactic.
Is Karadicz an ethnic Serb?
I seem to recall that he is Macedonian.

[jno]

as long as he wasn't Milosevic's counsel or anything, I should say it's okay. The more experience judges get, the better. But it might depend on exactly what is position was in the earlier trial. As long as it was stricly impartial, then I don't suppose it makes any difference whether he got his ideas on Sprska from the trial, from newspapers or at his mother's knee. No judge, or anyone else, is immune from a lifetime experiences; what makes you a good judge is your ability to rise above any possible bias you may have.