So to kick this thread back onto topic, why on Earth did the defense put Buckingham on the witness stand?
Because they had to.
Buckingham's statements, as reported in the press, using words like "creationism" and statements about "two thousand years ago, somone died on the cross for us; won't someone take a stand for Him?" (I apologize if that's a misquote; I didn't bother to cross-check.) are direct and clear-cut evidence about the religious motivations of the government officials who made the policy. By extension, it's clear-cut evidence that the government policy itself is motivated by religious, not secular, purposes, violating the first prong of the
Lemon test.
Without some way to refute those newspaper reports, the game is as good as over. And the only person who can credibly testify about what Buckingham said is Buckingham himself. (Imagine if the defense tried to refute those statements without Buckingham's testimony. Wouldn't you find that a little suspicious?)
I suppose another strategy might have been for the entire board to try to distance itself from Buckingham -- "Well,
he may have had religious motivations, but
I agreed with the proposal for sound pedagogical reasons, which I am inexplicably unable to articulate at this moment due to an acute confusion between whether my foot belongs in my shoe, or my mouth." However, I really doubt that dog would hunt either; the judge is demonstrably no fool.
Other than that, I think that all the defense can really hope for is to muddy the waters enough to make a credible case on appeal. I honestly don't see (from my reading of the transcripts) how the trial judge could make any finding other than for the plaintiffs.
