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

[chancery]

Same here, chancery. It's a tricky topic. I had a case involving contempt in a civil case in which the judge put my client and the opposing client both in jail. I learned that day about arrogant, abusive judges who say things they totally forget. He told my client in fervent tones to come to court any time her ex harassed her when he issued a permanent domestic relations order of protection then threw her in jail!

That's ... And it doesn't sound as though it was a lot of fun for your client or for you.

On a sort of related topic, I've seen comments to the effect that Trump's being found in contempt is a violation of the terms of his bail in the two federal prosecutions, and, I guess, in the Georgia prosecution as well, with giddy speculation that the judges in these prosecutions should reconsider Trump's release orders with a view towards cancelling them.

I don't see it. Under the Eighth Amendment, conditions of release can't exceed what's necessary to ensure that the defendant will appear at trial. I doubt that the prior calculus that led to Trump's being released has materially changed.

I suppose a judge should additionally consider whether a defendant at liberty is likely do things that will interfere with the judicial process. Trump's attacks on witnesses and potential witnesses probably fall into that category, but I don't see any of the judges canceling Trump's release based on what he's done so far.

[andersweinstein]

From Shad Riley @MrShadRiley on Twitter:
Trump Trial Transcripts (Searchable PDF): 4/30/24
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IHUxf4kcxKrxjmAyD-NYXbcgnVwgl_Qp/view

[Dave from down under]

[bob]

[Dr. Ken]

waiting for trump to blow a gasket

[Sam the Centipede]

waiting for trump to blow a gasket

You'll be disappointed. He's wearing the heavy duty diaper today.

[Maybenaut]

TRUMP is sitting passively at his lawyer Todd Blanche as he reads out Michael Cohen's tweets attacking him on Twitter, incl Cohen calling him "Von Schitzenpants" and a "petulant defendant" and that he won't donate to Trump's jail commissary

MN Skeptic, time to update the header in the general Trump thread…

[chancery]

A dialog on the question of Trump's counsel not conceding the authenticity of video tapes and transcripts:

https://twitter.com/lawofruby/status/17 ... 9248337044

Lisa Rubin
@lawofruby
This is not only a waste of the jury’s time, but it is a silly strategy for those who keep insisting the DA is keeping Trump from the campaign trail.

https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/sta ... 6653134133

Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
It’s not a silly strategy. It is a way for the defense to force the prosecution to clutter their case with boring, unimportant testimony.

The boring testimony can make it harder for the jury to focus on what’s important.

It's one of the tools in a defense lawyer's kit. Whether it's a good idea here I dunno, but it's not crazy.

[MN-Skeptic]

MN Skeptic, time to update the header in the general Trump thread…

Nah, I'll still to the actual legal findings. They're enough.

But I probably should increase the $83M fines amount. Does anyone know what the actual amount of fines are right now, excluding interest? I don't want to have to increase the amount on a daily basis with interest added in.

[Estiveo]

Approx $537m excluding interest.

[chancery]

But I probably should increase the $83M fines amount.

Taps the sign:

Sorry to be that guy, but these are civil recoveries, not fines, which are criminal penalties.

Actually not sorry.

Please: "judgments," "damage awards," "civil recoveries", lots of terms to choose from.

[Maybenaut]

There can be overlap - restitution can be a criminal penalty, but it can also be available as a civil remedy, no?

[chancery]

Hmm. Well, sure, restitution to victims can be awarded as one of the penalties imposed as the result of a criminal judgment. N.Y. Executive Law 63(12) provides for an order "directing restitution and damages." And conceptually, I guess, there is often a fuzzy overlap between a proceeding brought by the state for civil damages to vindicate a public purpose and a criminal prosecution resulting in a fine, also to vindicate a public purpose, possibly the same purpose.

But the NYAG's proceeding against Trump isn't a criminal proceeding. No right to a jury trial,* no proof beyond a reasonable doubt, no double jeopardy issues. So, the judgement isn't a "fine." Q.E.D.

Ditto the judgments in the two Carroll actions.

________
* Although I suspect that there might have been a non-frivolous argument that Trump et al. were entitled to a jury trial under the NYS constitution as to some issues in the NYAG proceeding. But they waived it.

[W. Kevin Vicklund]

Go easy on us, chancery, even SCOTUS gets it wrong repeatedly:

The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive civil fines, including forfeitures. Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 113 S.Ct. 2766, 125 L.Ed.2d 441 (1993); Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602, 113 S.Ct. 2801, 125 L.Ed.2d 488 (1993).

Hudson et al. v United States, 522 U.S. 93,118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/522/93

[raison de arizona]

Trump's lawyer Susan Necheles then asked Judge Merchan if he would look at the big stack of news articles that Trump waves around the courthouse from people like Tom Fitton, Jonathan Turley, Alan Dershowitz and others who say that the case should be thrown out. Trump wanted Merchan to read them to determine whether it would violate the gag order if he posted them online. Merchan said he was not going to issue preemptive rulings or read the articles. (As we previously reported, Trump pays a staffer $105,000 to follow him around with a wireless printer to scour the internet to find positive articles for him to read).

https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-trial-continues

[MN-Skeptic]

Since I don't label the amount in the title heading, I just state it, it doesn't matter what I call it later in a post. But it is fun to read the lawyers discussing what to call it.

The title has been updated to $537M.

[chancery]

Also, mostly by me.

Further discussion should probably go in the main Trump thread, which is where I'll reply to W. Kevin Vicklund's devastating riposte.

[chancery]

[SuzieC]

AND THEN Trump's own attorney introduced as an exhibit a Michael Cohen tweet in which he called Trump President ShitzinPantz which went viral all over the world. Thank you Trump's attorney!

[Kendra]

Just catching up on a busy news day, but reports I'm hearing is tfg is now claiming he can't testify because of the gag order Video clip shows him looking at his attorney after that comment and attorney nods his head.

ETA: https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/02/politics ... index.html

Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Thursday that he is not allowed to testify in his own defense at a criminal trial in Manhattan over his alleged falsification of business records.

After leaving the courtroom for the day, Trump told reporters, “I’m not allowed to testify. I’m under a gag order. I guess, right?” He added, “I’m not allowed to testify, because this judge, who’s totally conflicted, has me under an unconstitutional gag order.” He continued by complaining that he’s “not allowed to talk” even when others attack him, then said again, “So I’m not allowed to testify because of an unconstitutional gag order.”

Facts First: Trump’s claim is false. He is allowed to testify at the trial; the decision is entirely up to him. Judge Juan Merchan’s gag order, which narrowly restricts his out-of-court speech, does not in any way stop him from testifying. The gag order also does not broadly prevent Trump from talking; he is permitted to speak to the media, speak at campaign events, attack President Joe Biden and other political opponents, and even attack Merchan and the Manhattan district attorney behind the case.

[Slim Cognito]

I was wondering what he’d use for an excuse.

[Kendra]

Sounds like Judge Merchan heard about the claim made last night that he can't testify because of the gag order. He made it very clear that nothing in the gag order stops tfg if he does choose to testify.

This morning he blathered on again with the usual refrains, plus complaining about the just released jobs report. Attorney standing by him (Blanche?) seemed rather stoic, but boy - I'd love one of the networks to get a body language expert in for us. I'd love some insight into what might be going on in his head.

[realist]

And he filed a “Constitutional Challenge” against
Judge Merchan.

[p0rtia]

Hope Hicks takes the stand.

[Foggy]