Of course, it’s to be continued...
Banro letting Clarke go, as a matter of law, is not an admission of guilt. Nor is or would it be an admission of guilt in Clarke’s attorneys attempting or succeeding to prevent his testimony. You don’t know what you’re talking about. For instance, Banro can simply claim that it let him go because both defendants separately had become under legal attack, and separating the two from attachment to each other makes best legal and tactical sense. That’s all. No guilt is admitted.
As to Trunkmonk, yes, if Court sets an order, Clarke will have to follow it. Though even then, Clarke may not follow it, if he and his attorneys deem it better for him that he disobey the Court’s order, and accept any subsequent repercussions.
Further, the Court does not just conclude things, as you suggest. One of the two parties must raise or motion an issue for the Court to consider. Legard will have to prove Banro's guilt you claim is evident. The evidence you claim of dismissal and prevention of testimony as a determination of guilt can simply be established as appropriate legal protection of each party, Banro and Clarke.
