There was a very curious ruling during the trial. It is a strange situation to explain because my attorney (public defender) objected to the relevance of a piece of evidence during trial that would have been helpful to me, the defendant. The admissibility was not in question before the trial. I can't figure out why the judge ruled in our favor regarding this piece of evidence without ever seeing it. I understand this will be hard to answer because you will probably need more information.My attorney was too inexperienced to know the value of this piece of evidence. The judge hypothetically could have known it was helpful to the defendant. She also knew that since she was ruling in favor of my lawyer's objection, then it would not be argued that she was biased against the defendant. The main issue is my attorney objected to the admissibility of similar pieces of evidence based on them not being relevant. The judge ruled that they were admissible. She made the ruling in "our favor" regarding this other piece of evidence after my attorney objected during trial for the same reason he objected to the other pieces of evidence. If one piece of evidence is admissible for one reason, then another piece of evidence should also be relevant for that same reason or they BOTH should not be relevant.