Fogbow

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:53 pm “Victim” has been verbed!!!!!

So what? "Verb" has been verbed

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports

Off to a stormy start, Carroll's lawyer brought up tfg's truths this morning, sounds like judge was not amused. Adam Klasfeld is live tweeting for us.

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:09 am

I thought she tried to get the dress admitted, but trump wouldn't produce a sample for testing, so the dress would have no value as evicence.

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:48 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:09 am https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 5699046402

I thought she tried to get the dress admitted, but trump wouldn't produce a sample for testing, so the dress would have no value as evicence.

That was my recollection as well.

keith wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:42 am

Tiredretiredlawyer wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 4:53 pm “Victim” has been verbed!!!!!

So what? "Verb" has been verbed

I am celebrating its transition!

raison de arizona wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 11:54 am

Kriselda Gray wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:48 am

Kendra wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 10:09 am https://twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/stat ... 5699046402

I thought she tried to get the dress admitted, but trump wouldn't produce a sample for testing, so the dress would have no value as evicence.

That was my recollection as well.

The judge should admit the dress and also allow Ms. Carroll to offer the evidence that Trump refused to submit his DNA.

orlylicious wrote: ↑Tue Apr 25, 2023 9:49 am Hilarious article, thanks for linking it! Sparklemagic lawyter

Judge Kaplan rejected that motion, finding that the testimony and tape were pertinent under the Rule 415 FRE exception for propensity evidence in the case of sexual assault. He also found that the motion was untimely.

I have mixed feelings about this. Ordinarily, you’re not allowed to present evidence of a person’s prior bad acts to show that the defendant had the propensity to commit the crime charged. Prior bad acts are admissible under Rule 404 to show motive, intent, mistake, identity, or common scheme or plan, and the jury will be instructed as to the limited purpose they can consider it for.

In criminal trials, evidence of prior acts of sexual assault is admissible under Rules 413 (sexual assault) and 414 (sexual assault of a child), and “ may be considered on any matter to which it is relevant.” That’s legal long-hand for propensity to commit similar crimes, and the jury isn’t limited in what they can consider it for.

The Rules require only “evidence,” which (at least where I practice) means a mere unsubstantiated allegation. There’s no requirement of preponderance or clear and convincing, or whatever. I really hate this rule because it’s ripe for abuse.

By way of a monotonously regular example, Victim A makes an allegation. Investigation ensues, and law enforcement uncovers Victims B and C. Ordinarily, the jury would be instructed that each charge has to stand in its own, so it can’t consider the charges involving each victim as proof of any other victim. (That’s the standard spillover instruction). So the government chooses the two strongest cases to charge, declines to charge the weakest case, then puts that victim on the stand to provide “propensity” evidence, thus bridging the spillover gap.

I’ve never been able to convince any court that that’s a due-process violation. Maybe it’s not, but it feels like one to me.

I say I have mixed feelings because this is a civil trial, so the stakes are lower. This kind of shit shouldn’t be admissible in a criminal trial, but it is.

Why is providing evidence of similar crimes verboten? If a défendent says they didn’t do this act but they are known to have done the act many other times how can you exclude that?

I know this is basic but it’s always puzzled me. My sole full jury experience (all others settled during trial) was an injury claim in a traffic accident. The second day of trial we were asked to wait all morning in the jurors’ lounge. When we resumed the prosecutor presented evidence that this was the defendants 8th trial. All for accidents. The first one was real, it’s on tape. Slipped in a grocery store on a spill. All subsequent were sketch. She won some and lost some.

She lost ours. Not solely due to this evidence but it was the clincher.

I mean, not for nothin', but isn't tweeting about a case that is now in progress before a jury the kind of thing at which a judge would normally let a gag order be issued if requested? Especially if one is tweeting about things that were forbidden to be presented to the jury formally?

Ben-Prime wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:01 pm I mean, not for nothin', but isn't tweeting about a case that is now in progress before a jury the kind of thing at which a judge would normally let a gag order be issued if requested? Especially if one is tweeting about things that were forbidden to be presented to the jury formally?

Well, a little research shows me I was not wrong.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/2 ... l-00093940

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:39 pm Why is providing evidence of similar crimes verboten? If a défendent says they didn’t do this act but they are known to have done the act many other times how can you exclude that?

IANAL, but my understanding is that prior crimes are not normally admissable in the trial stage. That is, they may not be used (with above-noted exceptions) to prove that the defendant committed THIS crime.

However, once a conviction is entered, prior crimes ARE admissable in determining the sentence.

IOW, prior crimes don't prove he/she committed this crime, but at sentencing, it can be used to show that this person is a habitual offender and therefore deserving of a stiffer sentence.

I realize that this is probably an over-simplification, and the IAALs here can correct me, but I believe that that is the basic theory.

Remember back to Roy Moore v Viacom / Sasha Baron Cohen? Inner City Media did excellent coverage. Now they're live tweeting this trial and it's amazing... it's truly like a transcript. I don't know how they're doing it. Somebody pointed it out and haven't dug in yet (was reading the Disney lawsuit, they are going to chop Ronald DeSantis up like Les Poissons) but wanted to share the link.

That IS a great site. Ms. Carroll is on the stand now and they are live-tweeting her testimony.

Right, Suzie? It's like they have a stenographer doing it.

Here's a thread reader unroll up to a few minutes ago for easier reading --

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1651 ... 12233.html

Inner City Press guy moved onto something else, so it's back to Adam Klasfeld to keep us going.

Carroll's lawyer notes the Eric Trump tweeted about him.

After that, Kaplan issues a stern warning to Trump's lawyer Joe Tacopina, saying the posts could put the ex-prez and "conceivably" his son "in harm's way."

Judge: "If I were in your shoes, I’d be having a conversation with your client."

He adds later that "there are some relevant United States statutes here and somebody on your side ought to be thinking about them. "

The judge in the E Jean Carroll trial is taking Trump's derogatory social media posts from this morning seriously. His reference to other federal statutes is likely to the 18 USC 1500 series of obstruction of justice crimes.

I'm still seeing Inner City, at the bottom of the unroll there's a "force refresh" button, or can look at the account directly. Not taking anything away from Adam, he's terrific. It seemed like Inner City went to do other stuff during a break, but there's a lot of good accounts live tweeting. This is horrific and heartbreaking, E Jean is so brave doing this.

Inner City Press @innercitypress
Counsel: How about this interview in The Hill, June 24, 2019, where he says "She's not my type." What do you understand that to mean?
Carroll: That I'm too ugly to attack, to rape. I thought he was going to say it was consensual. Then I started getting threats

Inner City Press @innercitypress 2m
Carroll: The letters I got as E. Jean, they turned negative. And the threats?
Counsel: What was your reaction?
Carroll: I deleted them.
Counsel: Did you also get support?
Carroll: Yes. From all over. But the vileness about my ugliness, it swamped it out.

Inner City Press @innercitypress 35s
Carroll (voice breaking) Getting my day in court, it is everything to me. So I am happy (sobs).
Counsel: Shall we take a moment?
Carroll: I'll get myself together. This is my day in court. I'm not going to cry and waste everyone's time... I lost 8 million readers.

Done for the day, jury excused.

Inner City Press @innercitypress 6m
Carroll: I've still got 19,000 readers on Substack. But Elle Magazine fired me since I accused Donald Trump.
Counsel: Were you able to obtain a new job?
Carroll: No. I have a Substack. For Elle once a month I got $5000. Now I churn out 3 a week for the same income

Inner City Press @innercitypress 4m
Counsel: Have you heard of Jessica Leeds?
Carroll: Yes. I interviewed her about Donald Trump assaulting her on a place. The press tends to use words like grope. I --
Tacopina: Objection.
Judge Kaplan: To what? We'll break here, the jurors can go home. But first...

Inner City Press @innercitypress 1m
Judge Kaplan: Very important you don't read anything about this case or go online.
[Jury leaves]
Tacopina: She said, Other women had come forward --
Carroll's lawyer: She's covered a lot today. We aren't trying to import other allegations.
Judge Kaplan: Remind me

Inner City Press @innercitypress 1m
Judge Kaplan: OK, see you tomorrow.
[Judge leaves]
Updates stories coming - and then, booklet a la
US v Ghislaine Maxwell: US v Milton of Nikola: Rapp v Spacey

Amazing how much this reporter is doing. Excellent coverage. E Jean's testimony reads very credibly. Guess we'll see the ashtray guys cross tomorrow, his nasty demeanor and the judge's disgust with him will be interesting.

noblepa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 2:15 pmIANAL, but my understanding is that prior crimes are not normally admissable in the trial stage. That is, they may not be used (with above-noted exceptions) to prove that the defendant committed THIS crime.

Evidence of other bad acts (including crimes) may be admissible at a trial, with caveats.

Generally, you can't introduce evidence a defendant committed a separate crime to show that the defendant committed the charged crime. Or that the defendant is just a bad hombre. But you can introduce evidence of the defendant's other crime to prove some other fact, like the defendant's motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident with respect to the charge crime.

This is often seen as a nod-and-a-wink: "We're not saying this other burglary proves the defendant is guilty of this burglary; we're just saying it shows the defendant has the intent to commit this burglary. And look at the similarities! Both involved someone breaking into a stranger's house at night and taking some stuff! Practically a signature! Draw your own conclusions. "

Now, the rules are different for sex crimes. When there's a sex crime involved, you can introduce evidence of other sex crimes to show propensity, that is, the likelihood of engaging in other sex crimes. So, for sex crimes (only), "He raped before, so he raped this time as well!" is a perfectly valid argument.

Used our new AI video for the first time in a tweet commending Inner City

Phoenix520 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 26, 2023 1:39 pm Why is providing evidence of similar crimes verboten? If a défendent says they didn’t do this act but they are known to have done the act many other times how can you exclude that?

I know this is basic but it’s always puzzled me. My sole full jury experience (all others settled during trial) was an injury claim in a traffic accident. The second day of trial we were asked to wait all morning in the jurors’ lounge. When we resumed the prosecutor presented evidence that this was the defendants 8th trial. All for accidents. The first one was real, it’s on tape. Slipped in a grocery store on a spill. All subsequent were sketch. She won some and lost some.

She lost ours. Not solely due to this evidence but it was the clincher.

I’m not bothered by prior acts coming in under Rule 404 to prove specific things, like absence of mistake, identity, motive, intent, and the like, when coupled with a jury instruction that says that evidence can only be considered for the limited purpose for which it was offered and for no other purpose (like the defendant must have committed the crime because he’s a bad person, for example).

But Congress carved out an exception to the general rule for sex assault cases. Pretty much anything goes if there’s a prior allegation. There’s no requirement that it be considered for a limited purpose.

What bothers me about it is that in the criminal context it makes it easier for the jury to conclude the government met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt. I think the potential for relieving the government of its burden (and depriving the defendant of his constitutional right to have the government prove every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt) is too high.

A lot of people disagree with me, including every government appellate counsel and every appellate judge I’ve ever raised the issue with. So if folks here disagree with me too, that’s OK - you’re not alone.

The judge in the E Jean Carroll trial is taking Trump's derogatory social media posts from this morning seriously. His reference to other federal statutes is likely to the 18 USC 1500 series of obstruction of justice crimes.

Too also: If Carroll isn't satisfied with the verdict, the tweets may play a role in some sort of new-trial or appellate claim.

It's like starting a sportsball match with a few autogoals; you're already behind.

Now the question is between today and tomorrow will Trump be an idiot and post about this on trump social?