Bragg Manhattan DA charges tfg? Hush money. tfg “INDICATED!”

[Kendra]

Erin Burnett just announced she'll have Cohen on her show later on in the hour. CNN.

[chancery]

Returning to the thread topic , this quite detailed courtroom account, by Tyler McBrien, who I don't recall reading before, is rather better than average.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a- ... r-march-25

I love this:

At the moment Blanche says “election interference,” Merchan produces a tissue from the bench and proceeds to blow his nose.

[Suranis]

Returning to the thread topic , this quite detailed courtroom account, by Tyler McBrien, who I don't recall reading before, is rather better than average.

https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a- ... r-march-25

I love this:

At the moment Blanche says “election interference,” Merchan produces a tissue from the bench and proceeds to blow his nose.

Very nice read.

[johnpcapitalist]

I started off using 14 inch papyrus and then turned to yellow foolscap paper. California eventually converted to 11 inch paper and it was a hard thing for us to do.

I am actually so old that I remember having a deposition reporter who did not use a steno machine. His CSR number was in low double digits. His shorthand was flawless.

My grandfather was a technician at the Fountain Pen Shop, formerly in downtown LA and now in Monrovia, retiring from there in the 1950s, before I was born. He had to work weekends because the CSR's would bring in briefcases full of pens. He would clean them, check the cut on the nibs (he knew each reporter's preferences) and fill them in time for the CSR's to pick them up on Monday morning as they headed for court.

https://www.latimes.com/obituaries/stor ... -shop-dead

[RTH10260]

Trump warned that outbursts and lawyer games will be 'shut down' at hush money trial

Travis Gettys
February 20, 2024 11:26AM ET

Donald Trump may have to be on better behavior at his upcoming criminal fraud trial than he was at the civil fraud case that cost him $354 million.

The former president is scheduled to stand trial starting March 25 in Manhattan on 34 counts of fraud, falsifying business records and intent to conceal another crime, including state and federal election laws, as part of his hush money payoff to adult movie actress Stormy Daniels.

And a trio of legal experts wrote for the New York Times he will be on a much shorter leash this time.

"[Manhattan District Attorney Alvin] Bragg and his team will be confronted with the challenge of working with Judge [Juan] Merchan to prevent Mr. Trump from acting out in front of the jury, and thereby disrupting the case or introducing irrelevant information to try to prejudice the outcome," wrote legal experts Norman Eisen, Joshua Kolb and Barbara McQuade.

"We all saw the spectacle that Mr. Trump created in the New York State civil fraud trial. But we also saw Mr. Trump reined in by federal Judge Lewis Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll case, which, unlike the civil fraud one, featured a jury watching every move."

Trump will face a jury in this case, as well, and the rules are different in criminal court in comparison to a civil trial.



https://www.rawstory.com/trump-courtroom-outburst/

based on this NYT opinion piece (is guest link) https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/20/opin ... =url-share

[poplove]

@Victorshi2020
BREAKING: Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg just announced they are seeking a gag order against Donald Trump in the hush money & election interference criminal case, citing his history of "inflammatory remarks" & his threatening posts against prosecutors & DA Bragg. This is good.

First page of the order holds no punches: "To protect the integrity of this criminal proceeding and avoid prejudice in the jury, the People respectfully request that this Court issue a narrowly tailored order restricting certain prejudicial extrajudicial statements by defendant"

Here are just a few of the examples of Trump's social media posts that "have often used ominous language and violent rhetoric to describe this prosecution." Glad DA Bragg is taking this action to prevent Trump from inflicting more potential harm on jurors and prosecutors.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics ... index.html

[AndyinPA]

https://thehill.com/homenews/4490109-tr ... ney-trial/

Former President Trump’s lawyers in his hush-money case on Monday demanded a New York judge block key witnesses from testifying in Trump’s first criminal trial set to begin next month.

Trump attorney Todd Blanche moved to block testimony from Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-fixer, and two women he paid to stay quiet about affairs they alleged with Trump: Porn actress Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal.

Trump’s reimbursements to Cohen are the thrust of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s (D) prosecution of Trump, who denies the affairs and pleaded not guilty to his 34 charges of falsifying business records.

The 47-page motion attacks the witnesses’ credibility at length, casting Cohen as a “liar” and suggesting Daniels would offer “false” and “salacious” testimony.

Trump’s lawyers also took aim at how prosecutors have described the hush money payments as a “catch-and-kill” scheme to quash negative information about Trump in advance of the 2016 presidential election.

[RTH10260]

MTN Ben Meiselas comments on the motion in limine filed for Teh Donald

[Volkonski]

Judge’s Order Will Prevent Trump From Revealing Names of Jurors

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/nyre ... press.coop

A New York judge on Thursday effectively barred former President Donald J. Trump from exposing the identities of potential jurors at his first criminal trial later this month, emphasizing a need to protect those who might decide the highly sensitive case.

The judge presiding over the trial, Juan M. Merchan, granted a request from the Manhattan district attorney’s office to withhold the names of jurors from the public. The judge also ordered that their addresses be kept from everyone except the lawyers in the case.

Mr. Trump’s legal team, which is defending the former president from accusations of covering up a potential sex scandal during the 2016 election, agreed that it was appropriate to keep the jury’s information private.

A lawyer for Mr. Trump, Todd Blanche, declined to comment Thursday.

New York State does not allow juries to operate in full anonymity, meaning that defendants are allowed to know jurors’ names. Justice Merchan, however, moved to shield the names of the jurors in Mr. Trump’s trial from the broader public, underscoring the potential harm in a case involving a polarizing figure like the former president who can whip his supporters into a frenzy.

[Rolodex]

Well this is good news! I always assumed the judge would shield them but who knows any more.

So, the lawyers can know their names. I can't remember who this team is for Trump but if they leak we'll know where it came from.

[Rolodex]

I guess the team has filed some motion(s) to exclude certain things.

[pipistrelle]

That’s not official, and his attorneys know it.

[p0rtia]

Watching these fucks howl "Immunity! You have to wait till SCOTUS rules!" at every turn disgusts me (I know, it's life in the autocracy, but it still disgusts me).

MSM predicting that Bragg with delay or will remove some areas of evidence to kowtow to this insanity.

Fuck you, SCOTUS. You are officially complicit in the rolling coup.

[much ado]

Can't Judge Merchan just rule "Nope, that doesn't look like an official presidential act to me. We're going to include it as evidence."

What would happen then? Why would Merchan not do that?

[bob]

Can't Judge Merchan just rule "Nope, that doesn't look like an official presidential act to me. We're going to include it as evidence."

The judge can.

What would happen then?

The trial likely would proceed. I could see the defendant wanting to get the issue before an appellate court (before the trial), but this is an evidentiary issue, and not a motion to dismiss. So I don't see any judge biting on this backdoor request for more delay.

Denying the motion and proceeding to trial would create an appellate issue. So I could see the prosecutor withdrawing the exhibit (as there's too much risk for not enough reward) or perhaps even the court coming to some sort of adjacent conclusion ("unduly prejudicial," etc.).

[p0rtia]

Can't Judge Merchan just rule "Nope, that doesn't look like an official presidential act to me. We're going to include it as evidence."

The judge can.

What would happen then?

The trial likely would proceed. I could see the defendant wanting to get the issue before an appellate court (before the trial), but this is an evidentiary issue, and not a motion to dismiss. So I don't see any judge biting on this backdoor request for more delay.

Denying the motion and proceeding to trial would create an appellate issue. So I could see the prosecutor withdrawing the exhibit (as there's too much risk for not enough reward) or perhaps even the court coming to some sort of adjacent conclusion ("unduly prejudicial," etc.).

Thanks Bob. Question about the possible appellate issue: It's the immunity issue, right? Because it qualifies for an interlocutory appeal? So, assuming SCOTUS finds that he has no pres. immunity in the DC case, would the issue still be appealable in the Bragg case?

[RTH10260]

But if the tweet were an "official act" on Twitter, wasn't his account last considered a form of publication to be archived, then the judge could take it as "judicial notice" ?

[bob]

But if the tweet were an "official act" on Twitter, wasn't his account last considered a form of publication to be archived, then the judge could take it as "judicial notice" ?

Judicial notice basically means the fact is not in dispute.

It appears undisputed that the tweet exists. The parties are disputing whether the jury should be made aware of it. If it is (as the defendant claims) an "official act," then (he argues) it is irrelevant because no liability can be attached to it. The prosecutor, however, would counter that the tweet itself isn't a criminal act, but rather is relevant circumstantial evidence of state of mind concerning the charged criminal acts, so immunity/official shouldn't be a meaningful consideration to its admissibility.

* * *

Question about the possible appellate issue: It's the immunity issue, right? Because it qualifies for an interlocutory appeal?

Yes but ultimately no: It does touch upon the immunity issue (hence why it is being raised), but no one is being prosecuted for that tweet. The tweet has evidentiary value related to a criminal prosecution, but no one is arguing the tweet by itself was a crime.

So I could see the argument: "We have to wait and see what SCOTUS says about immunity to discern the tweet's evidentiary value." But the court should respond, "This is just an evidentiary issue, and courts routinely make rulings mindful of the possibility that some other future ruling might in indirectly invalidate the court's reasoning on the issue before it."

(But I also could see the court saying, "In an abundance of caution, the tweet is excluded," which would effectively kill the issue.)

So, assuming SCOTUS finds that he has no pres. immunity in the DC case, would the issue still be appealable in the Bragg case?

Ultimately, yes, because the fallback argument inevitably will be, "even if there's no immunity, it was still irrelevant (or too relevant, i.e., unduly prejudicial)."

The real question is whether it would be immediately appealable, and I don't see a court pausing the trial for months just to resolve that.

[p0rtia]

Thanks, Bob.

[Kendra]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... 8ded&ei=32

‘A Hail Mary to end all Hail Mary’s’: See Trump's latest desperate attempt to delay hush money case

Lisa Rubin, MSNBC Legal Correspondent, Andrew Weissmann, former top prosecutor at the Justice Department, and Donna Edwards former Democratic Congresswoman from Maryland join Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House to discuss the latest attempt by Donald Trump and his legal team to delay his NY Hush Money trial until after the Supreme Court weighs in on his Presidential Immunity claim

Video at link.

[RTH10260]

H/T @ bob - I am loosing the red twin thread among all the cases. "mindset" aha - I was ready to take the defense claim that hush money was an official act

[Slim Cognito]

The week isn't over yet.

[MN-Skeptic]

Erik Uebelacker
@Uebey

NEW: Donald Trump will be mounting an advice-of-counsel defense in his upcoming criminal trial.

This means he'll argue that he can't be deemed responsible for hiding hush money payments to Stormy Daniels because he was acting on advice from his lawyers.

"This is not a formal advice-of-counsel defense," his lawyers say.

They're claiming that his specific argument won't require him to break attorney-client privilege, so there is "no basis" for prosecutors to get a preview of their defense prior to trial.

Edited to add link to document - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... el-defense

[MN-Skeptic]

For our lawyers - can you actually have an Advice of Counsel defense without having a formal Advice of Counsel defense?

[Sam the Centipede]

Trump could point out that his current counsel can't get the date right. It's 2024, not 2023. Details, eh?

This non-lawyer does not expect that bullshit to fly! Do "trust me, I'm the good guy" defenses work? Saying, in effect, "we don't want to provide any of the evidence that is obligatory in cases like this, trust us" will surely elicit the most quizzical of raised eyebrows from the judge.