Thoughts Regarding the Motion for a New Trial Hearing

Believers are Called to Rebuke Evil

I previously wrote a detailed Substack regarding the Motion, on November 3, below:

Why was there a hearing?

Before filing the rebuke in the Motion for a New Trial on October 29, I had asked two members of the trial legal team if I could contact the judge and take him to lunch to discuss my challenge one-on-one. They said that it is not possible with an open case (we believed the case was open because there was no formal filing of the verdict). My biblical responsibility is to meet with the person who has offended me. You may recall that this same pattern occurred after I reviewed the medical records and requested a meeting with the St. Elizabeth’s CEO and Dr. Shokar to discuss my findings on November 8, 2021. Their refusal to meet ultimately led to my lawsuit to rebuke the evil. That’s why the current Motion was filed in Judge McGinnis’ court.

Interestingly, the judge scheduled a hearing, even though I had waived my right to a hearing and so had the defense.

The defense filed Briefs in Opposition on November 3 (above) and November 17 based on the briefing schedule they requested. It is important to note that none of the important accusations made in my Motion were denied in their Briefs. Of course, they denied there was bias and claimed that the evidence I presented was not newly discovered. Accordingly, they asked the judge to dismiss my Motion on technical grounds.

What was Judge McGinnis’s goal, given that a hearing was not requested? We all found out very quickly. He used his platform to inform the public that he had done nothing wrong, accused me of being disingenuous with my Motion, and stated that I was looking for someone to blame. He allowed no rebuttal to his explanation for not granting a new trial. He had his decision written out in advance.

This was his courtroom, therefore his prerogative. Our Wisconsin trial attorney, Joe Voiland, told me once, “A judge in his own courtroom is the most powerful person on the planet.”

I’m thankful Judge McGinnis took the Motion for New Trial seriously.

What led up to the hearing?

The judge unilaterally denied our Motions in Limine (MIL), without discussion on the MIL, resulting in a trial that allowed my religious beliefs and post-Grace’s death research regarding COVID and the medical industrial establishment to influence the jury. This situation happened during the pre-trial hearing on May 20.

Continuing on page 151:

In the Motion for New Trial, on page 30 (immediately below), we explained the critical importance of the MIL. The excerpt referenced on page 30 is from the actual MIL, which the judge reviewed BEFORE he denied our MIL on May 20.

Conclusion: the judge was warned of what would happen at the trial in advance, and we all witnessed this prediction unfold during the trial.

Everyone makes mistakes. In this case, I believe the judge got angry regarding my giving a pre-trial interview to the Post-Crescent and made a bad decision. Furthermore, in this case, I had 100% of the consequences, and the judge had none. He said he’d apologize if an article wasn’t published before the trial. No article was published. He didn’t apologize. An apology at that time would have presumably led to our MIL being revisited or the substance mitigated at the trial.

Why was the hearing important?

This reality on page 30 of the Motion for New Trial led to the conclusion on page 31 (citations removed):

Think about it. If I had a negative bias toward the medical industrial establishment before taking Grace to the hospital, I would have never taken her to the hospital. Her death motivated me to begin researching the system we’ve been programmed to accept. That’s why the post-Grace’s death research I’ve done was not relevant to the trial.

The jury made up its mind in about 15 minutes.

Regarding the quick decision, the judge chose this situation to mock me during the hearing on December 19. Specifically, he said, “The court finds that Mr. Schara, your desire for someone to blame, is an entirely understandable and very human emotion. However, 12 jurors, your peers, after hearing all the evidence that came in and being presented with all of the legal questions, decided against you. Quickly. Clearly. And really, without any concern or objection.” (See timestamp 30:08 – 30:46 of the hearing link below.)

Despite the way the trial proceeded, the real jury of my peers was shocked by the jury’s decision. Why? Because they listened to the evidence. They listened to Dr. Berdine’s testimony. So did the judge. Dr. Berdine was our medical expert.

In my opinion, Dr. Berdine was the most credible witness of the trial. Why? I have gotten to know him. He is a humble man who sensed he was called to do this work on behalf of Grace and what her case represented. This was the first case where he worked on behalf of a plaintiff. He did not take a penny for the hundreds of hours of work he did in preparation for, and including, the trial. The summary of his testimony is here for review:

The judge also reviewed Dr. Berdine’s scathing account relative to the staff’s use of Precedex. In his report dated December 6, 2024, he stated, “The only solution recommended by ANY of the physicians named as defendants in this case for the observed agitation of Grace was chemical sedation starting with Precedex.”

He added, “Precedex was NOT safe for Grace Schara at an infusion rate greater than 0.7 microgram/kg/hr. It does not matter what the prior experience of ANYONE has been with OTHER patients.” He then added, “Every time the use of Precedex by defendants failed to achieve the desired result and caused life threatening complications, the defendants got a bigger hammer by raising the Precedex dose.”

Most damning of his conclusion was, “On October 13, around 0000 [midnight] the Precedex was increased to 0.8 microgram/kg/hr. This was a deliberate overdosage. The predictable result of this dose change would be cardiovascular collapse. The only question would be how long it would take for the overdosage to become fatal.” (These caps and bold text are directly from the report.)

If the judge wasn’t shocked, why not? Is he not awake to what’s happening? If he was shocked, he had a responsibility to consider overruling the decision of the jury. This is called a ‘judgment notwithstanding the verdict.’ Could it be that the criminal investigation he was under, during Grace’s trial, influenced him not to take a stand for the truth?

The December 19 hearing

For those with ears to hear and eyes to see, the judge exposed his integrity to the anti-Christ system of injustice. He spent almost the entire 31 minutes justifying what he did. He had the right to defend himself.

The entire hearing can be watched courtesy of CHD.TV:

The entire May 20 pre-trial transcript is below, for reference.

2025 05 20 Hearing Transcript

764KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

For those interested in digging, you’ll notice many differences in the pre-trial transcript versus what the judge knit together during the December 19 hearing. He portrayed a different story than what I witnessed happen in his courtroom on May 20 and rebuked in the Motion for New Trial filed on October 29. There were no cameras in the courtroom during the May 20 pre-trial hearing, so the transcript from that day doesn’t communicate the emotion.

The judge also referenced a June 21 e-mail that attorney Mike Edminister (my lead trial counsel) wrote to him two days after the trial. The judge filed this e-mail with the Clerk of Courts on November 3, five days after I filed the Motion for New Trial.

Because of this filing, I met with a local attorney to get an understanding of how this e-mail related to the Motion for New Trial. The attorney’s response:

“Using an ex parte communication praising himself demonstrates that when the matter becomes personal, there is no deference to the rules.”

What I learned from this attorney was that Mike complimented the judge’s “evidentiary” rulings. That means “in front of the jury.” Everyone I talked with thought the judge did a good job in front of the jury, outside of not challenging their 15-minute decision. The e-mail has nothing to do with his MIL ruling during the May 20 pre-trial hearing.

Additionally, the attorney explained that this communication from Mike is considered an “ex parte communication.” That means a judge is supposed to share it with all sides immediately, or not even read it.

Finally, the judge allowed no opportunity for rebuttal during the hearing. I stood on the Motion and would have continued to stand on it if he had allowed rebuttal. Why? Because it was the truth.

Should we engage in a debate with a person who has demonstrated that they are not seeking the truth? (See Philippians 2:3-8)

The hearing was an important reminder that Judge McGinnis is not my enemy.

Comments after the hearing

Most of the comments I’ve seen and heard focused on the judge’s attitude, with several saying they were sorry I had to sit through this. I understand. However, there’s nothing to be sorry about, other than Grace not receiving a fair trial. This is what I believe I’ve been called to do.

As I was reflecting on the hearing, I was reminded of Oswald Chambers’ words that summarize God’s perspective as our personal trainer:

“God does not further our spiritual life in spite of our circumstances, but in and by our circumstances.” And, “We are not fundamentally free; external circumstances are not in our hands, they are in God’s hands, the one thing in which we are free is in our personal relationship to God. We are not responsible for the circumstances we are in, but we are responsible for the way we allow those circumstances to affect us; we can either allow them to get on top of us, or we can allow them to transform us into what God wants us to be.”

In closing

That is why the filing for a new trial was important.

Let’s not kid ourselves – COVID has divided the country. Accordingly, my MIL were the only tool to ensure Grace received a fair trial. The attorney who represented me at the hearing, Andy Barnhart, explained the context of this sentence to the group of supporters who gathered to discuss the hearing afterwards. Andy explained that while I have the Biblical duty to be outspoken publicly, in a trial, I have the right to have the protection of those public statements influencing the jury. Specifically, he said, “It is against the rules to allow something irrelevant to be allowed.”

In summary, for the court to have so callously and willfully shut down our team’s MIL, not to even hear a syllable, in hindsight, the only explanation is bias.

Final thoughts on the motion and the trial

My dual responsibilities since Grace’s death remain the same: rebuke evil and warn those with ears to hear. See Ephesians 5:11 and Ezekiel 33:8-9.

The goal in filing the Motion is the same as Grace’s trial – repentance. If a person repents, we win. In God’s economy, that’s all that matters.

God is leading us on an exciting mission. This last step has provided a bridge to the next.

Grace’s death has not been in vain.

We can’t look at the verdict as evidence of God’s perfect will. Juries get things wrong every day. Judges get things wrong every day. Of course, He knew the verdict before we ever set foot inside the courtroom. He is sovereign. There are no coincidences in God’s economy. God is also the God of justice. We can say His perfect will is for justice. Does He expect justice in man’s courtroom? We know He has a much longer view than we, and that view seemingly includes a loss being more important than a win. Why? Maybe for men to stop putting their trust in anti-Christ systems.

God bless you.

Grace’s Dad

Scott Schara, President

Our Amazing Grace ™

1 Sam 17:47

Our Amazing Grace is a trademark of Our Amazing Grace’s Light Shines On, Inc.