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

[pipistrelle]

I'm going to ask a stupid question: Did this violate terms of service and how? Don't get me wrong; I'm cool with it going away. Just wondering why it isn't allowed.

When I went to it, I got recos for other fundraisers for families whose houses burnt down and animal shelters. Things I wouldn't mind donating to.

[poplove]

I'm going to ask a stupid question: Did this violate terms of service and how? Don't get me wrong; I'm cool with it going away. Just wondering why it isn't allowed.

When I went to it, I got recos for other fundraisers for families whose houses burnt down and animal shelters. Things I wouldn't mind donating to.

Terms of service are are pretty comprehensive. Plus they have the right to refuse service. I'm guessing this might be the violation:

F. not to use the Services on behalf of a third party or post any personal data or other information about a third party, without the express consent of that third party;

https://www.gofundme.com/c/terms

[Sam the Centipede]

First, thanks all for the discussion on the "imagine" objection, interesting and informative.

Sort of related to that, on actal transcripts and live reports: ICP frequently reported the plainfiff's counsel calling "objection!" and the judge responding "overruled", just one word from each person.

That reporting was (reasonably) accurate, wasn't it? They weren't dropping parts of the exchange for brevity, perhaps?

Of course tv dramas need to include an explanation ("objection! those materials are not in evidence!", "overruled! I want to hear what the witness says!") in their courtroom hokum, inbound by the real rules of procedure and evidence, so viewers can follow the plot. Lawyers (even if rubbish) in court don't need spoon-feeding that way.

In real cases, is this brevity a common pattern? Or are there fewer objections typically? Except perhaps for token objections to preserve a record for a potential appeal?

[Maybenaut]

Here’s what happens where I practice:

Objection!
Basis?
Hearsay!
Counsel?
It’s not hearsay because…
Overruled

The judge always made the objecting party state the basis for the objection and gave the proponent of the testimony the opportunity to respond.

That’s how it ought to be everywhere, but I don’t know if that’s actually true. And some of these things might have already been ruled on multiple times.

[Sam the Centipede]

Thanks Maybabe, to this outsider that pattern feels right for such a venue: judge not assuming too much, but not wasting time on unnecessary blather.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Objections to preserve a record for appeal are not “token”. They are very important tho often brief. I agree with what maybenaut said about objection exchanges.

[Suranis]

Is it true what someone said above, that Habba saying "no objection" when the Prosecution entered something into evidence scuppered the chance of bringing it up in Appeal? I know the Judge shut her down when she tried to object to the Prosecution bringing pieces of evidence up later in closing.

[Reality Check]

I cannot speak for what is normal but from following different reports coming from the trial am am sure what we got from ICP, and Adam Klasfeld were not verbatim accounts. It would be impossible to do that Tweeting from a phone. There were differences in the streams we saw also.

That said the reporters did a wonderful job. So i suspect there might have been more than just "objection" on some things. However, Judge Kaplan was very familiar with this case and the parties. After all this was his second go around. I suspect in a lot of objections he knew where Habba was going and whether to cut it off or not.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

I think I did it again
I made you pay for those things that you said
Oh Donny
It might feel like a rush
Better believe that I'm serious
'Cause you’ll lose all your money
That is just so typically you
Oh Donny, Donny

Oops, I did it again
I sued you for harm, you lost in the courts
Oh Donny, Donny
Oops, you think you’re immune
It’ll go away soon
You’re just not innocent

You see my problem is this
I'm hiding away
Wishing these threats didn’t truly exist
I cry, watching the tweets
Can't you see I'm so hurt in so many ways
But you’ll lose all your money
That is just so typically you
Oh Donny, oh

Oops, I did it again
I sued you for harm, you lost in the courts
Oh Donny, Donny
Oops, you think you’re immune
It’ll go away soon
You’re just not innocent

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

All rise!
E. Jean, bend over, there's something I want you to have
Oh, it's pitiful, but wait a minute, isn't this?
Yeah, yes it is
But I thought Stormy Daniels called it a mushroom, it feels like a thumb
Well E. Jean, you better not say anything
Aww, you’ll wish I hadn’t

Oops, I did it again for your harm
You lost in the courts, oh Donny
Oops, you think you’re immune
You’re just not innocent

Oops, I did it again
I sued you for harm, you lost in the courts
Oh Donny, Donny
Oops, you think you’re immune
It’ll go away soon
You’re just not innocent

Oops, I did it again
I sued you for harm, you lost in the courts
Oh Donny, Donny
Oops, you think you’re immune
It’ll go away soon
You’re just not innocent

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

Bravo!!!

[realist]

Here’s what happens where I practice:

Objection!
Basis?
Hearsay!
Counsel?
It’s not hearsay because…
Overruled

The judge always made the objecting party state the basis for the objection and gave the proponent of the testimony the opportunity to respond.

That’s how it ought to be everywhere, but I don’t know if that’s actually true. And some of these things might have already been ruled on multiple times.

During my courtroom experiences both in state and federal courts, I've seen it both ways, and both ways in the same trial.

Maybenaut's example above is the classic exchange, happens a lot.

I've also seen the Kaplan-like exchanges (assuming the tweets we received were accurate, of course) many times. An example would be a question asked which obviously would elicit hearsay (and obviously didn't involve one of the exceptions) the judge would simply sustain without asking the basis or seeking a response, same with, say, leading questions, where they are not permitted.

We also have no idea what occurred during the sidebars.

If/when we see a transcript, we'll be better informed, but that's been my experiance FWIW.

[Volkonski]

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’

https://nypost.com/2024/01/27/news/trum ... y-verdict/

Donald Trump’s lawyers will use an “insane” and previously unknown “conflict of interest” between E. Jean Carroll’s lawyer and the judge presiding over her defamation case against the former president as the basis of their appeal seeking to toss the eye-popping $83.3 million jury verdict, The Post has learned.

Trump lawyer Alina Habba said she was unaware Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan and Carroll’s lawyer Roberta Kaplan worked together in the early 1990s at the same powerhouse white-shoe law firm until Saturday, when asked about it by Post columnist Charles Gasparino, who was told by a source that the judge was once Roberta Kaplan’s “mentor.

“It was never disclosed. It’s insane and so incestuous,” Habba said, insisting neither the 79-year-old judge nor Roberta Kaplan, 57, who aren’t related, disclosed the “conflict of interest” and a violation of judicial ethics rules.

Roberta Kaplan worked at Paul, Weiss Rifkin, Wharton & Garrison in Midtown from 1992 to 2016, before leaving to become a founding partner of Kaplan Hecker & Fink, according to her LinkedIn page.

“This is news to us,” she continued. “We are going to include this in our appeal and take appropriate measures. The fact it wasn’t disclosed is an ethics violation.”

During her early years at Paul Weiss, she worked as associate of the firm at the same time as Judge Kaplan, who was a partner there until 1994 when he was appointed to the federal bench by then-President Bill Clinton.

Zak Sawyer, a rep for Roberta Kaplan, insisted no conflict exists.

[MN-Skeptic]

[RTH10260]

Trump lawyers to use ‘conflict of interest’ between judge, Carroll’s attorney in appeal of $83.3M jury verdict: ‘Insane’

https://nypost.com/2024/01/27/news/trum ... y-verdict/

Under such conditions there is likely never to be any lawsuit file any longer as all lawyers will at one time have clerked for judges somewhere or other.

Finding out long after the fact, eg trial, she missed the chance to ask him to recuse.

And Habba took 30 years to discover this hookup. Did she also find out that they traveled and loged together?

[keith]

Did Habba fail to notice fhat theyhad the same last name?

Surely that constitutes a recusable conflict of interest?

How many Smiths are on the court staff in the stolen documents case? j'accuse!. Recuse!

[RTH10260]

He used to represent Trump. Hear what he thinks about Alina Habba

CNN
Sat, January 27, 2024 at 4:18 AM GMT+1

Former Trump lawyer Tim Parlatore tells CNN’s Kaitlan Collins that he thinks Alina Habba essentially left Trump “undefended” in the E. Jean Carroll defamation trial.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/used-represe ... 50866.html
(original: CNN)

[Dave from down under]

Stop being mean to pretty not smart..

How could she defend the indefensible??

[bob]

Slate: After $80 Million Verdict, Trump Has a Jury Problem Ahead of Criminal Trial.

Executive summary:

1. Juries sometimes don't appreciate the nuances in the law, but they are excellent observers of human behavior, and sometimes base their votes accordingly; leading to

2. Pissing off and being disrespectful toward the judge, especially a judge known not to suffer fools, in front of the jury is an especially bad idea.

3. Will his criminal counsel do a better job at managing their toddler client?

[Sam the Centipede]

Are juries ever supposed to "appreciate nuances in the law"?

My understanding is that juries should determine, assess and evaluate the facts of the case according to the evidence presented in the courtroom, guided by the judge's explanation of applicable criteria for significance, criminality or culpability. No law required.

[bob]

guided by the judge's explanation of applicable criteria for significance, criminality or culpability. No law required.

The judge's "explanations" are based on the law. A judge must explain to the jury what the law is. The judge's failing to explain, or explaining incorrectly, is fertile ground for reversals on appeal.

[raison de arizona]

E. Jean Carroll on what she wants to do with the $83.3 million:

“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates. That will cause him pain for something, to give money to certain things. Perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.”

[Maybenaut]

E. Jean Carroll on what she wants to do with the $83.3 million:

“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates. That will cause him pain for something, to give money to certain things. Perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.”

I don’t think $83.3 Million is going to be enough.

[Slim Cognito]

Oh snap!

[Dave from down under]

E. Jean Carroll on what she wants to do with the $83.3 million:

“I’d like to give the money to something Donald Trump hates. That will cause him pain for something, to give money to certain things. Perhaps a fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.”

I don’t think $83.3 Million is going to be enough.

Waiting for
Ivanka to put her hand out…

[Rolodex]

New filing.

Habba says Robbie Kaplan had Judge Kaplan as a mentor while they were at the same law firm.