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

[chancery]

trump's legal team believes a lot of stupid shit.

Have I ever mentioned how much I love your way with the english language...

[RTH10260]

Jon Stewart on Trump’s trial nap: ‘Imagine committing so many crimes, you get bored at your own trial’
Late-night hosts discuss the first day of Donald Trump’s criminal trial in New York, for alleged hush-money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels

Guardian staff
Tue 16 Apr 2024 17.18 CEST

Late-night hosts discussed Donald Trump apparently falling asleep and more during the first day of his criminal hush-money trial in New York.


https://www.theguardian.com/culture/202 ... rump-trial

[Kendra]

SNL should be good on the Cold Opening.

[zekeb]

Any other candidate would have dropped out before allowing themself the be publicly humiliated day after day.

[p0rtia]

[RVInit]

You guys? Anybody think they'd make a great juror in this one?

Great ... for whom?

Obviously, "justice," yes; sure. But "good" jurors are routinely bumped by one side or the other due to their perceived ability to "harm" the desired outcome.

Engineers, for example. Your typical engineer would say, "I'm trained to think logically, and apply rules, without bias toward the result."

A prosecutor would bump that person. Because someone well aware of the burden of proof and necessity of every proving each element could string together a series of AND operations and vote not guilty if even one element failed.

Which is technically correct, but perhaps too trees-for-forest for a typical prosecutor.

That makes me wonder why the prosecutor would be OK with a lawyer on the jury, let alone TWO.

[noblepa]

Any other candidate would have dropped out before allowing themself the be publicly humiliated day after day.

He doesn't see it as humiliation. He sees it as righteous persecution. I think that he honestly believes the crap he spouts about being the greatest president ever (even though historians disagree) and that he has done nothing wrong.

He sees the humiliation as a badge of honor; that he is fighting the good fight.

Besides, it plays well with the MAGA base. It is further evidence of the liberal, deep-state corruption that is ruining the country.

[chancery]

That makes me wonder why the prosecutor would be OK with a lawyer on the jury, let alone TWO.

As you probably know, lawyers used to be automatically exempt from jury service, at least in the jurisdictions with which I am familiar. But those exemptions were eliminated decades ago, and trial lawyers and judges have adjusted to the changed rule. There are lots of lawyers in Manhattan, so it's not surprising that they turn up in juries now. And I doubt that the prosecution would want to burn a precious preemptory strike on an otherwise acceptable juror just because she's a lawyer.

[realist]

That makes me wonder why the prosecutor would be OK with a lawyer on the jury, let alone TWO.

As you probably know, lawyers used to be automatically exempt from jury service, at least in the jurisdictions with which I am familiar. But those exemptions were eliminated decades ago, and trial lawyers and judges have adjusted to the changed rule. There are lots of lawyers in Manhattan, so it's not surprising that they turn up in juries now. And I doubt that the prosecution would want to burn a precious preemptory strike on an otherwise acceptable juror just because she's a lawyer.

Being a SECR back in the day I was always excluded from jury duty, but not until I showed upon the panel. I knew all the judges, both federal and state, and when they saw my name they would invariably call me to the bench and basically say gedouddahere. I asked several why they always tossed me and the answer was the same with all, essentially that I knew things about the process that other jurors would no know, such as the case likely survived a motion to dismiss, and a summary judgment motion and then things such as survived a directed verdict motion, etc. In the last roughly decade of my SECR career that changed, but most attorneys chunked me as well.
'
As an aside, I did serve on a civil jury once with 2 of the worst litigators I'd ever seen (not quite Orly Taitz bad, but bad nonetheless). I was foreman and it actually took us about 5-10 minutes to find for the defendant. After the verdict the judge (who had been a prior client of mine) came in to thank the jurors and give us our little certificates thanking us for our service. I waited to be in line last, then asked her, How did this case survive summary judgment? She kinda laughed and said, Good question. The answer is they never moved for it. I certainly would have granted it. Thus affirming my opinion of the attorneys.

All that said to point out attorneys (especially if litigators) would know all that stuff as well. Though most of the litigators I know all want to serve so they can see firsthand how juries really think and go about the process.

[Reality Check]

Hey Ben Matlock served on a jury on one episode. He was the only vote for not guilty on the first vote. He of course convinced the other 11 to acquit on the show. Let's hope fiction does not become reality.

[New Turtle]

I doubt there will be an acquittal. It is either guilty verdict or mistrial.

[raison de arizona]

Page one of Sandoval filing, ISO full doc.

ETA: Full doc: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... tice-filed

[Maybenaut]

Page one of Sandoval filing, ISO full doc.

ETA: Full doc: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... tice-filed

I don’t know from NY Criminal law, but that notice by itself would be inadequate in the military. It’s not enough to identify the prior bad acts; the prosecution also has to explain the relevance (motive, absence of mistake, intent, etc.) They may have done that in other filings, so, I dunno.

[bob]

It’s not enough to identify the prior bad acts; the prosecution also has to explain the relevance (motive, absence of mistake, intent, etc.)

The notice says that, if the defendant testifies, it will use these acts to impeach his credibility.

Impeaching a witness's credibility always is relevant (subject to being unduly prejudicial, consumptive of time, etc.).

[Maybenaut]

It’s not enough to identify the prior bad acts; the prosecution also has to explain the relevance (motive, absence of mistake, intent, etc.)

The notice says that, if the defendant testifies, it will use these acts to impeach his credibility.

Impeaching a witness's credibility always is relevant (subject to being unduly prejudicial, consumptive of time, etc.).

I saw that; I just didn’t know if they also plans to use them for some other Rule 404 purpose.

[bob]

I saw that; I just didn’t know if they also plans to use them for some other Rule 404 purpose.

This is what's on the second page:

The People's February 22, 2024 motions in limine already disclosed the misconduct and uncharged criminal acts which the People intend to use at trial as substantive proof of any material issue pursuant to CPL § 245.20(3)(b). To the extent the Court concludes in resolving those motions in limine that the identified acts may not be admitted as substantive proof of a material issue, the People hereby give notice that we intend to use the acts identified in those motions to impeach the credibility of the defendant pursuant to CPL § 245.20(3)(a).

[Fiascoist]

While practicing, I served on two juries. One civil and one criminal. Two different judicial districts. As a side note, I found them to be very educational in seeing a trial from that position, knowing nothing at the beginning and piecing it together. It opened my eyes and I changed some of my trial presentation plans in future trials.
Other interesting points:
1. The other jury members never asked me any pointed questions about evidentiary rulings or why things were not asked. They seemed to respect the admonitions of the court that all the information we needed came from the witness stand.
2. On the civil case, there were two lawyer jurors and the other dude became a judge later.
3. I asked the Bar Association for 1 hour of continuing legal credit (each trial took 4 days) towards my 45 hours of required education over a 3 year period. And I was told, Nope, it has no educational value. Actually was some of the best education I received. (I even had the judges in both cases chat with me about how they could do a better job as a judge).
Kinda my final point, being that this case is in NY, we don't know if these lawyers have ever seen the inside of a courtroom and may not even have any specialized knowledge about this type of law that they would or could use. (Just going to law school doesn't make anyone a trial lawyer or a criminal trial lawyer and certainly doesn't give anyone any expertise in evidence just as it doesn't make someone a securities lawyer, etc.).
I actually am more interested in the fact that the state has used 4 peremptories and the defense 6 out of a total of 10 for each and the defense has gotten 2 people kicked off for cause.

[p0rtia]

Thanks, Fiascoist,

Highly enlightening tale.

[raison de arizona]

On the left:

NY judge's gag order prohibiting Trump from "making ... public statements about any prospective juror or any juror in this criminal proceeding."

On the right:

Trump making public statement about prospective jurors in this criminal proceedings.

[pipistrelle]

At least that's not about any one juror, which seems to be the intent of the gag order.

[pipistrelle]

I've worked with I can't even count how many attorneys, and some of them may never have seen a courtroom, or rarely.

[Dave from down under]

Who is bold enough to take the under on Donnie sleeping in court again?

[Kendra]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

A juror sworn onto Donald Trump's jury panel Tuesday was dismissed Thursday morning after expressing concerns that part of her identity were made public by the media.

There are now six jurors empaneled. Juror No. 2 told Judge Juan Merchan:

"Aspects of my identity have already been out there in the public, yesterday alone I had friends colleagues and family push things to my phone questioning my identity as a juror," she said.
The juror’s concerns reflected the historic nature of the case and the intense pressure in a polarized political climate that will be on the panel of people who are called to do their civic duty to be fair and impartial.

Merchan then addressed the press in court, telling them "there's a reason this is an anonymous jury."

[Suranis]

"Look Milord. All we said is that he is a man from 57th street with 3 children who works in Traffic and has a wooden leg. No-one could identify him from that."

[RVInit]

I doubt there will be an acquittal. It is either guilty verdict or mistrial.

This is where I think it would be risky for both sides to have a lawyer on the jury. Juries are made up of humans and it seems the likelihood that they would assume that they lawyer "knows more than we do". Depending on said lawyer that person may well take advantage of that fact.

Interesting, this morning there was some talk on CNN of the prosecutor having some issue with the IT consultant that was selected as the foreperson. I had to make breakfast for mom and, for some reason, we don't yet have a TV that works with my Bluetooth headphones. So I didn't get to hear the whole story as of yet.