@luigirovatti
1: That wasn’t entirely clear in your previous post, as one sentence seemed to imply that the attorney in question was the defense’s lawyer while another sentence implied that the attorney was the prosecution’s lawyer. I realize that English is not your first language, but your posts are, more often than not, vague and confusing in their wording. This is something you’d do well to work on.
2: Lots of people identify lots of things. The issue is that eye witness identification is notoriously unreliable. Without solid physical evidence there is nothing to establish that the defendant and the attorney’s rapist (from however long ago) are, in fact, one and the same. The presiding judge may well find that there is no conflict of interest there. This is bolstered by -
3: The fact that the defendant was never convicted (or, apparently, even charged) with the attorney’s rape.