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

[pipistrelle]

You forgot his finger quotes.

[Dave from down under]

MAGA tourists storm the court..
With gallows for the judge/prosecution
Because…

[sugar magnolia]

His bone spurs are acting up so he's on bed rest for an indeterminate time.

[bob]

Per this Baltimore Sun article, it says there are two filings, one of which is styled as a lawsuit against the judge.

I infer the defendant filed a notice of appeal and a separate petition for writ of mandamus (which always lists the trial court as the respondent). It sounds belt-and-suspenders: If there's no jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal, the appellate court would have jurisdiction for a writ petition.

And it sounds like the contested subjects are venue and the gag order. Of the two, the gag order likely will get more play. (While venue can be challenged before trial on a writ, if there was a motion to change venue, that denial can be addressed on appeal after the trial.)

[chancery]

Thanks Bob, a belt-and-suspenders mandamus (special proceeding under Article 78 in NYS) makes sense.

And I'd forgotten that, unlike NYS civil practice, for which interlocutory appeals are available almost without limit, appeals before verdict aren't a thing in NYS criminal prosecutions. "It is well-established that 'no appeal lies from an order arising out of a criminal proceeding absent specific statutory authorization,'" People v. Juarez, 31 N.Y.3d 1186, 1187 (2018) (quoting People v Santos, 64 N.Y.2d 702, 704 (1984)). If I'm reading the statute correctly, the only type of interlocutory appeal available is an order denying forensic DNA testing.

I'm pretty sure that it's also nix on Article 78 proceedings as well, apart from certain claims for relief from conviction.

[noblepa]

His bone spurs are acting up so he's on bed rest for an indeterminate time.

Except when the doctors let him get some much needed excercise by attending campaign rallies.

[chancery]

https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status ... 3789054190

Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon
Just in: Trump’s bid for emergency relief to halt trial ~ for change of venue ~ is denied.

Gag order motion comes tomorrow.

And waddaya know, there is a statute providing for a stay of a criminal proceeding pending a motion for change of venue. But it has to be a timely motion, and motions are due 45 days before trial. Too late, chum.

[Greatgrey]

https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status ... 3789054190

Frank G. Runyeon
@frankrunyeon
Just in: Trump’s bid for emergency relief to halt trial ~ for change of venue ~ is denied.

Gag order motion comes tomorrow.

And waddaya know, there is a statute providing for a stay of a criminal proceeding pending a motion for change of venue. But it has to be a timely motion, and motions are due 45 days before trial. Too late, chum.

IMG_0371.jpeg (459.94 KiB) Viewed 594 times

IMG_0372.jpeg (449.13 KiB) Viewed 594 times

[chancery]

Thanks for posting those images.

Evidently the change of venue stay motion was filed under NY CPL § 230.30, not under Article 78. So if the reporting is accurate, the gag order is being challenged under Article 78.

[chancery]

Still no documents available from the court docket.

venue change motion Document list(1).pdf

(6.98 KiB) Downloaded 5 times

[Slim Cognito]

His bone spurs are acting up so he's on bed rest for an indeterminate time.

Except when the doctors let him get some much needed excercise by attending campaign rallies.

They can't just stick him out in the dog run?

[Kendra]

New reporting coming on air, CNN has a copy of the jury questionair.

[New Turtle]

Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?

[much ado]

Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?

Yes, definitely. I know a story about that.

[SuzieC]

I believe the potential jurors can be asked whether they have strong opinions for or against Trump.

[Ben-Prime]

Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?

Yes, definitely. I know a story about that.

"In a hypothetical matchup between Carl Fredricksen from 'Up' and the Tasmanian Devil, who would get your vote?"

[bob]

Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?

"Out of bounds"? No; there's not really any hard limits.

Would a judge typically allow that question? Unlikely, as, normally, its relevance to bias is tangential at best.

When the defendant is a past president and current presumptive nominee? It seems very relevant.

In this case, however, the question isn't being asked. Because, presumably, there already are a boatload of questions that sufficiently inquire about the topic (of bias, both for and against) without asking specifically about voting. That is, in this instance, it would be cumulative.

[Rolodex]

I think I saw that they called 500 potential jurors. That seems like a lot, but not really. I think I remember they called like 1000 for the James Holmes trial (Aurora, CO theater shooter). Maybe I'm misremembering. I don't know if they have limits on alternates, but I hope they get a lot.

I think a lot of folks will try to get out of it because of all the nuts who commit violence in turnip's name.

[Dave from down under]

Did Donnie’s lawyers try to get the RNC loyalty test questions into the jury selection?

[p0rtia]

Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?

I'll leave that to the IAALs. But I'll add that one of the judges, I think it was Kaplan in the second Carroll case, who asked the jurors if they believed the 2020 election was stolen.

[bob]

Did Donnie’s lawyers try to get the RNC loyalty test questions into the jury selection?

Here's the judge's letter (i.e., ruling) about jury selection. In it, the judge acknowledges the parties submitted proposed questions. The court includes the questions it intends to ask, some of which may be modified versions of the parties' proposed questions.

* * *

I think I saw that they called 500 potential jurors. That seems like a lot, but not really.

Not really. Many people will get summarily dismissed for reasons unrelated to this trial, e.g., financial hardship, language difficulties, physical disabilities, etc. Some will get quickly booted for being too obvious publicity hounds or fanatics.

The judge's letter also discusses this.

[much ado]

Is it out of bounds to ask potential jurors who they voted for in the last few presidential elections?

"Out of bounds"? No; there's not really any hard limits.

There are in Michigan. (Yes, I know this isn't Michigan.)

I voted in an election for mayor in Ann Arbor, MI, in 1977. The Democratic candidate won by a single vote.

(As an aside, when our then teenage son told me "Why should I vote? One vote won't make a difference.", I told him the story of my one vote. It was fun watching his eyes get big.)

The Republicans discovered that 20 voters in the election lived in an enclave of a block or two surrounded by the city of Ann Arbor, but "outside" the city limits. They were registered to vote, were sent voting materials by the City of Ann Arbor, and were encouraged to vote. In order to decide the outcome of the election, they were called on to testify in court about who they had voted for. Two young women refused to answer on the grounds that who they chose to vote for was secret. They were held in contempt, handcuffed, and detained. This went to the Michigan Supreme Court:

Belcher v. Mayor of Ann Arbor

Plaintiff-appellee Belcher began an action for quo warranto based on allegations that 23 illegal votes were cast at the election. Plaintiff claimed that 20 of the voters did not live within the city boundaries and therefore were unqualified voters even though properly registered.

In October 1977 trial commenced and the record discloses that 17 of the 20 voters were mistakenly registered in Ann Arbor and apparently in good faith had voted in the April 4, 1977 city election, although they did not live within the city boundaries. Thereafter plaintiff advised the court that he intended to recall each voter and ask for whom each illegal vote was cast. The trial court ruled that such a procedure was permissible.

*134 When intervening-defendant-appellant Susan Van Hattum was called to the stand she refused to answer, claiming that she had a legal right not to reveal for whom she had voted. She was then held in contempt. Thereafter intervening-defendant-appellant Diane Lazinsky was recalled to the stand and also refused to answer the question on similar grounds.

The trial court then ordered a continuance of the trial so that the matter could be litigated in the Court of Appeals. That Court denied appellants' application for leave to appeal in a per curiam opinion.

We hold that a citizen's right to a secret ballot in all elections as guaranteed by Const 1963, art 2, § 4, cannot be so abrogated in the absence of a showing that the voter acted fraudulently. We express no opinion on the validity of the election.

The motion for immediate consideration is granted. The applications for leave to appeal are considered and pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The motion for stay of proceedings is denied as moot.

Al least in the State of Michigan a voter cannot be forced to reveal who they voted for. I think it should this way throughout the U.S.

[Greatgrey]

I believe the potential jurors can be asked whether they have strong opinions for or against Trump.

Thus, contrary to defense counsel's arguments, the purpose of jury selection is not to determine whether a prospective juror likes or does not like one of the parties. ' Such
questions are irrelevant because they do not go to the issue of the prospective juror's qualifications. The ultimate issue is whether the prospective juror can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law.

[RTH10260]

oopsie? GG showed this upthread already https://thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 60#p255860

New York appeals judge rejects Trump's request to delay hush money trial
Trump's lawyers had argued at an emergency hearing that the trial should be postponed while they seek a change of venue to move it out of heavily

Last Updated : Apr 09 2024 | 7:09 AM IST

A New York appeals court judge has rejected former President Donald Trump's request to delay his April 15 hush money criminal trial while he fights to move the case out of Manhattan.

The decision came Monday, a week before jury selection was set to start.

Trump's lawyers had argued at an emergency hearing that the trial should be postponed while they seek a change of venue to move it out of heavily Democratic Manhattan.

Donald Trump had asked a New York appeals court on Monday to move his hush money criminal trial out of Manhattan and reverse his gag order in an eleventh-hour bid for a delay just a week before the scheduled start.

At an emergency hearing, the former president's lawyers asked a judge in the state's mid-level appeals court to postpone the April 15 trial while they fight for a change of venue. The court signaled it would take up the gag order issue separately at a later date.

Trump lawyer Emil Bove argued that the presumptive Republican nominee faces real potential prejudice as a defendant in heavily Democratic Manhattan. Citing defence surveys and a review of media coverage, Bove argued that jury selection, scheduled to start next Monday, cannot proceed in a fair manner.

Trump has suggested on social media that the trial should be moved to Staten Island, the only New York City borough he won in 2016 and 2020.
Steven Wu, the appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney's office, said trial Judge Juan M Merchan had already rejected Trump's requests to move or delay the trial as untimely.

The question in this case is not whether a random poll of New Yorkers from whatever neighbourhood are able to be impartial, it's about whether a trial court is able to select a jury of 12 impartial jurors, Wu said. He blamed Trump for stoking pretrial publicity with "countless media appearances talking about the facts of this case, the witnesses, and so on.

Justice Lizbeth Gonzlez noted that Monday's hearing didn't involve an appeal, per se, but the defence's desire for an emergency stay a court order that would prevent the trial from starting on time. She said she would review related court filings and issue a decision at some point.



https://www.business-standard.com/world ... 026_1.html

[Volkonski]

Appeals court rejects Trump’s bid to delay hush money trial over gag order

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-ba ... press.coop

A New York appeals court on Tuesday rejected former President Trump’s last-ditch effort to delay his hush money criminal trial while he argues against a gag order the judge overseeing the case imposed.

Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order precludes Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, court staff and the judge’s family, but doesn’t stop him from hurling insults at Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (D) or the judge himself.

During an emergency hearing Tuesday before Justice Cynthia Kern, Trump’s lawyers argued that banning public statements about those individuals is an unconstitutional prior restraint on his right to free speech while running for president and mounting his defense.

“The First Amendment harms arising from this gag order right now are irreparable,” said Trump lawyer Emil Bove, according to the Associated Press.

State prosecutors countered that Trump’s remarks threaten the “public interest in protecting the integrity of the trial.”

“This is not political debate. These are insults,” Steven Wu, appellate chief for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, said of Trump’s statements, according to the AP.

Trump’s lawyers had urged the judge to indefinitely pause the former president’s trial, which is scheduled to begin on April 15, via an emergency stay while they appeal the gag order. Kern declined to do so, meaning that barring further action, the trial date is set.

Trump’s lawsuit against Merchan over his gag order, which functions as an appeal, is under seal and not accessible to the public.