E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and United States of America (poll added!)

[Luke]

Hadn't seen this in a long time, ICP posted linked to the AC interview on YouTube. He says CNN deleted all the complete versions, but he someone kept it and reuploaded it. It doesn't have after the break though so not sure.






This is a follow-up with the "not my type" stuff.

[Flatpoint High]

https://abcnews.go.com/US/trumps-lawyer ... d=98981188

[Luke]

Here's Ashtray Joe's letter about a mistrial today. He whines that the judge (and E Jean) pointed out that she was using satire referencing Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" from 700 years ago (which "DeMaio" at the P&E loves to invoke).






18 page letter, Ashtray Joe was seething all weekend and it was instantly dismissed without comment : https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .164.0.pdf

[chancery]

Tacopina doesn't impress me as an ornament of the bar, but I don't think he's putting on a clown shoe. You've got to be aggressive to defend a case like this, which includes pushing back at the judge. As for the motion for a mistrial, he risks waiving issues if he doesn't file it. It's not unknown for a bunch of little things to add up to reversible error by a trial judge, but you need your objections on the record.

[northland10]

Disrupt, delay, disrupt. This is the Trump legal strategy.

[Luke]

OrlyLicious @Orly_licious 1m
Bonus: In Ashtray Joe Tacopina's attempt at a mistrial which was instantly rejected by Judge Kaplan, Ashtray Joe cites a #Birther case! WorldNetDaily's Farah v Esquire Mag (which Joseph Farah lost). Ashtray Joe is laughable in #CarrollVTrump. Pay Up. https://reuters.com/article/usa-lawsuit ... RO20120605





In honor of my wonderful buddy, Realist:

Ashtray Joe Pornstache.JPG (95.16 KiB) Viewed 1507 times

[much ado]

A Modest Proposal was written by Swift in 1729, so almost 300 years ago, not 700.

[Luke]

Yes, was quoting the judge but should have made that clear in my post. Maybe Judge Kaplan is older than we know.

[much ado]

Yes, was quoting the judge but should have made that clear in my post. Maybe Judge Kaplan is older than we know.

Right, saw that in the transcript...

[Luke]

Tacopina doesn't impress me as an ornament of the bar, but I don't think he's putting on a clown shoe. You've got to be aggressive to defend a case like this, which includes pushing back at the judge. As for the motion for a mistrial, he risks waiving issues if he doesn't file it. It's not unknown for a bunch of little things to add up to reversible error by a trial judge, but you need your objections on the record.

Fair enough, Chancery. Thank you for a very good reminder.

[chancery]

Teri Kanefield, who has decades of experience with criminal appeals, with some thoughtful comments about Trump's motion for a mistrial on Mastadon.

https://law-and-politics.online/@Teri_K ... 8332234722

Teri Kanefield
@Teri_Kanefield@law-and-politics.online

Trump's motion for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll case:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .164.0.pdf

This is exactly what to expect from Trump.

He is claiming that the judge is biased (among other things.) Most people who suspect they will lose feel like that.

Trump is showing he is "fighting" even though he is too cowardly to show up at the trial and is trying to give his supporters talking points.

It's more "The Judge Hates Trump and It's All Unfair" whining.

I don't like to predict what courts will do but . . . . (then I go on to make a prediction, right?) . . . none of things rise to the level of denying Trump a fair trial.

I don't know the standard in New York, but where I've practiced the errors made by the court would have to entirely deprive Trump of a fair trial so that literally any verdict would be flawed.

It's a high standard and really not met here.

It's Trump whining.

2/

As a practical matter, the person who rules on the motion is the judge himself. If you have a really good reason for demanding a mistrial (again in courts where I've practiced) the point of this motion would be to preserve the issue on appeal.

The judge would have to say, "Yup, I'm totally biased. Cancel the trial and start over."

Really unlikely, right? Particularly where the judge made a measured decision that the defense didn't like (like questioning about security cameras.)

3/

There are biased and unfair judges.

If you are sure you're going to lose because of the judge's bias, and you think the trial really is unfair, the reason to bring such a motion would be to preserve the issue for appeal.

Adding: I keep saying this motion isn't worth spending time on . .. then I'm back with "just one more point!"

The motion assumes as a fact that no rape occurred. That's what makes me think it's for public consumption and not serious.

That's for the jury to decide.

4/

One more!!!

(Inspired by discussion in the comments)

Defense lawyers bring these kinds of motions all the time. Sometimes it's because they have nothing else. Sometimes it is because they're right and the judge is screwing up.

I was coming at it from the angle of how Trump uses the court systems as a way to give talking points to his supporters and to show he is a 'fighter.'

5/

Comment:

BF (which I realize puts me very close to "well aktually") I've seen a few motions that read that way, including many from DOJ lawyers. They basically say "defendant did nothing wrong as ANYONE CAN SEE and anyone saying otherwise is JUST PLAIN WRONG so literally anything that threatens to undermine that MUST BE VIEWED WITH SUSPICION."

[in response to the comment]

Do you ever do criminal defense work?

Criminal defense lawyers are also allowed lots of leeway to make these motions. Sometimes you have to show your client you are working. Sometimes you have nothing else.

[p0rtia]

Tacopina doesn't impress me as an ornament of the bar, but I don't think he's putting on a clown shoe. You've got to be aggressive to defend a case like this, which includes pushing back at the judge. As for the motion for a mistrial, he risks waiving issues if he doesn't file it. It's not unknown for a bunch of little things to add up to reversible error by a trial judge, but you need your objections on the record.

Counterpoint: The fact that accusing a rape victim of lying is accepted and demanded by the system doesn't mean it isn't a clown shoe.

Agree on motions/making a record (from what I've learned from you good folks!).

[chancery]

Tacopina doesn't impress me as an ornament of the bar, but I don't think he's putting on a clown shoe. You've got to be aggressive to defend a case like this, which includes pushing back at the judge. As for the motion for a mistrial, he risks waiving issues if he doesn't file it. It's not unknown for a bunch of little things to add up to reversible error by a trial judge, but you need your objections on the record.

Counterpoint: The fact that accusing a rape victim of lying is accepted and demanded by the system doesn't mean it isn't a clown shoe.

Agree on motions/making a record (from what I've learned from you good folks!).

Meant to write "clown show."

If you're not willing to accuse a rape victim of lying, you're not competent to represent a defendant charged with rape. There have been some reforms to criminal procedure that imposed badly-needed limitations on the examination of a witness testifying to a sexual assault. And perhaps more are needed; IANACrL. But to prevent the defense from challenging the truthfulness of an accusation would not serve justice.

[Maybenaut]

If you're not willing to accuse a rape victim of lying, you're not competent to represent a defendant charged with rape. There have been some reforms to criminal procedure that imposed badly-needed limitations on the examination of a witness testifying to a sexual assault. And perhaps more are needed; IANACrL. But to prevent the defense from challenging the truthfulness of an accusation would not serve justice.

When I started answering the question, “So what do you do?” with “I call rape victims liars for a living,” I knew it was time to hang it up. I’m not entirely out yet, but I hope to be done by the end of this year.

I was able to justify what I do by telling myself everyone deserves a vigorous defense, yada, yada, yada. But #metoo killed me. I’ve done this kind of work for ever 20 years - it’s someone else’s turn to pick up the ball.

[Foggy]

Now, now.

I'm sure you call lots of other people liars, too also.

[Maybenaut]

Now, now.

I'm sure you call lots of other people liars, too also.

Sure. Children and battered spouses too, also.

Sorry. I’m in a mood.

[Dave from down under]

Some jobs grind you down…

You have done your time plus.. get out as soon as you can.

[Foggy]

Sorry. I’m in a mood.

[Foggy]

And so, okay, I'll be serious for a minnit about chancery's post about the duty of a criminal defense attorney to call a rape victim a liar.

Yes, your duty is to challenge the victim's account.

But there are effective and ineffective ways of doing that.

And the bottom line is always credibility, in other words, did your cross-examination make the jury think she's lying? Or mistaken? Or biased for some other reason? Or just plain wrong?

Or did your cross-examination give her an opportunity to make her testimony even stronger? Did the jury believe her more after your cross-examination is over?

And unless you are making inroads into the credibility of the victim, you might very well be making the jury very, very angry. In which case, they might take it out on your client. In which case, you really haven't done your client a big favor by (metaphorically) beating up his accuser on the witness stand. You might even be hurting your own case.

In my very first trial, a little boy testified that his dad hit his mom. I thought he was mistaken, but did I rough him up on the stand? Yell at the kid? Call him a liar?

Let's just say that when it was all over, the jury agreed with me that the little boy didn't really see what happened. I didn't have to be mean in order to challenge his account of the facts (and he wasn't the 'victim', his mom was); in fact, if I'd been mean I would have sunk my client - and got him to hate me for beating up his kid. But I leave it to those of you who followed along - did Taco Pie help or hurt Trump with his cross-examination?

I will confess, I am not paying attention to the trial much, but ol' Wifehorn (who is admittedly quite biased) tells me that Taco Pie has done a great job of bolstering her testimony, in addition to mangling the cross and pissing off the judge.

[Maybenaut]

Sometimes you have to call the victim a liar. But when you do that, you also have to hand the jury a reason she would lie. And it has to be a good reason before a jury will conclude that a woman or girl would put herself through all of this if it wasn’t true. She was “trying to get attention” - weak. She’s a child at the center of a bitter custody battle resulting from an acrimonious divorce - strong(er). She was having an affair and her husband found out - very strong.

In the military I can often argue that she was trying to stay out of trouble. Bunch of trainees get a hotel room out in town, lots of underage drinking, lots of sex, then the pictures start making the rounds. Women in the military know they have the upper hand if the command finds out about the underage drinking. An allegation of sexual assault stops all of that in its tracks.

[chancery]

Oh, no question that giving the lie direct is frequently bad tactics.

Edit: see Maybenaut's post above.

Over a decade ago I attended the three-day trial of a defendant accused of the sexual assault of a ~12-year-old, about 16 years old at the time of the trial. There was no issue of mistaken identity. I was part of a large group of family and friends who were supporting ... the defendant.

I will never forget the hushed courtroom when the complainant testified, and the serious attention of the ashen-faced jury. The prosecutor had a tendency to take cheap shots.

The defense attorney did not, but by the end of 20 minutes of cross-examination* it was obvious that the complainant's credibility had been exploded. The jury was out about 40 minutes, and they came back with unanimous not-guilty verdicts.

________
* I have an idea that the cross was deferred until the defendant's case, but if that's not a done thing, I guess my memory is faulty.

[chancery]

One more thing about that trial.

The defendant was represented by a brilliant attorney, one of the two or three best-regarded criminal defense attorneys in the state. It was not cheap.

I'm glad he wasn't represented by Tacopina.

[Dave from down under]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-01/ ... /102289856

Donald Trump has been denied a mistrial in a civil case in which writer E Jean Carroll is accusing him of rape and defamation, despite the former US president arguing the judge involved has made a series of unfair and prejudicial rulings against him.

Key points:
Donald Trump's lawyer accused the judge of being biased against the former president
The 18-page letter outlined how the judge interfered with his ability to defend Mr Trump
The judge denied the motion for a mistrial before testimony resumed

In an 18-page letter filed early on Monday in Manhattan Federal Court, Mr Trump's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, accused US District Judge Lewis Kaplan of being biased against the former president, including in the jury's presence.

He said the effect of Judge Kaplan's rulings "manifests a deeper leaning towards one party over another", including in comments where the judge "openly expresses favouritism".

Mr Tacopina said if a mistrial were not granted, Judge Kaplan should correct the record and give him more freedom to cross-examine Ms Carroll.

The judge denied the motion for a mistrial before testimony resumed.

Lawyers for Ms Carroll did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Requests for mistrials are often long shots, including when they are based on the judge's own statements.

Such requests also often form a basis for eventual appeals.

[Ben-Prime]

One more thing about that trial.

The defendant was represented by a brilliant attorney, one of the two or three best-regarded criminal defense attorneys in the state. It was not cheap.

I'm glad he wasn't represented by Tacopina.

There are times I wonder if Tacopina was hired precisely because if he lost, then Trump can turn around and say 'because he once discussed representing Stormy Daniels, he tanked my case deliberately'.

[RTH10260]

Not about Tacopina: this seems to be his first civil lawsuit at court. He is normally a lawyer at criminal court.