|
Grip it and rip it posted:That said this case is loving disastrous and I wouldn't be surprised if the power that be in the Republican party are genuinely considering throwing trump to the Sharks. I'm willing to bet a substantial number of Republicans are privately hoping for a conviction. Get Trump out of the way, but then they can go on the campaign trail and whine about how you need to vote them in to fix the bias in the system.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:We went over this above. The linked article is partially correct but only partially. A bad judge can tank the case in a lot of ways but only an acquittal by the jury is not appealable. A judicial acquittal by directed verdict is appealable. As long as the jury is empaneled and sworn in, if it gets dismissed, thrown out whatever, double jeopardy would apply. The jury doesn't actually need to decide the case. Edit: I should note that mistrials don't trigger the protection against double jeopardy. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jun 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:25
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Yes there is recourse, that's what an appeal is. You can almost never appeal an acquittal. Hieronymous Alloy posted:We went over this above. The linked article is partially correct but only partially. A bad judge can tank the case in a lot of ways but only an acquittal by the jury is not appealable. A judicial acquittal by directed verdict is appealable. We went over the issue above and a judicial acquittal by a motion for judgement of acquittal is only appealable if it happens after a guilty verdict is returned by the jury. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title18a-node36-node75-rule29&num=0&edition=1999 quote:The amendment also permits the trial court to balance the defendant's interest in an immediate resolution of the motion against the interest of the government in proceeding to a verdict thereby preserving its right to appeal in the event a verdict of guilty is returned but is then set aside by the granting of a judgment of acquittal. Under the double jeopardy clause the government may appeal the granting of a motion for judgment of acquittal only if there would be no necessity for another trial, i.e., only where the jury has returned a verdict of guilty. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977). Thus, the government's right to appeal a Rule 29 motion is only preserved where the ruling is reserved until after the verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:We went over the issue above and a judicial acquittal by a motion for judgement of acquittal is only appealable if it happens after a guilty verdict is returned by the jury. This is because Jeopordy ceases when the verdict is returned. So a subsequent dismissal doesn't trigger it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:32
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:This is because Jeopordy ceases when the verdict is returned. So a subsequent dismissal doesn't trigger it. Right, once the jury has issued a verdict, if it's "not guilty," he's not guilty. Before that though, anything that the judge *could* throw the case out on . . .would have MUCH more likely been already raised as a pre-trial motion, and then given cause for appeal. The judge would have to rule for the prosecution pre-trial and then change their ruling for the defense mid-trial. Theoretically possible but the judge would basically have to show their hand totally as a partisan. Federal criminal cases getting summarily thrown out on motions to dismiss or similar just . . . ain't likely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:42
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:theoretically possible but the judge would basically have to show their hand totally as a partisan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Does any theoretical "Cannon blows up the case" scenario preclude Smith from bringing subsequent charges against Trump for all the documents not included in the current 37?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Theoretically possible but the judge would basically have to show their hand totally as a partisan. Cannon has already shown her hand as a partisan and tried to do a bunch of stuff she can't do. She can legally acquit him and it's not reviewable unless it occurs after a jury verdict of guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:45
|
|
|
SubG posted:Does any theoretical "Cannon blows up the case" scenario preclude Smith from bringing subsequent charges against Trump for all the documents not included in the current 37? Yes, possibly, because unless the facts of the cases for those other documents differ substantially, double jeopardy attaches to facts already litigated. It would be hard to prove that the facts amounted to a crime in one instance but not another substantially similar instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Jeopardy_Clause quote:In Ashe v. Swenson, the defendant was accused of robbing seven poker players during a game. John Ashe was first tried for, and acquitted of, robbing only one of the players; the defense did not contest that a robbery actually took place. The state then tried the defendant for robbing the second player; stronger identification evidence led to a conviction. The Supreme Court, however, overturned the conviction. It was held that in the first trial, since the defense had not presented any evidence that there was no robbery, the jury's acquittal had to be based on the conclusion that the defendant's alibi was valid. Since one jury had held that the defendant was not present at the crime scene, the State could not re-litigate the issue.[8]
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
SubG posted:Does any theoretical "Cannon blows up the case" scenario preclude Smith from bringing subsequent charges against Trump for all the documents not included in the current 37? It depends on their closeness to the facts of this case. If there's just a 38th thing stemming from his actions here that they didn't charge him with thinking they are being sneaky for a second go at him, he'd be protected by double jeopardy. If there's another set of secret documents that he, in a separate instance did similar stuff with, it's possible he could be charged with crimes related to those. This is to keep prosecutors from trying to double, triple, dip on the same facts to fish out a guilty verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:53
|
|
|
SubG posted:Does any theoretical "Cannon blows up the case" scenario preclude Smith from bringing subsequent charges against Trump for all the documents not included in the current 37? Depends what the charges would be, if it's more classified documents then it would likely fall under double jeopardy. If Smith wants to charge him for like human trafficking then he is free to do so and it's basically a brand new case. Basically double jeopardy is structured so that in this case Smith would not be able to keep swinging charges one at a time all the way through document number 37 or whatever. IANAL but that is my read on the situation
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Cannon has already shown her hand as a partisan and tried to do a bunch of stuff she can't do. She can legally acquit him and it's not reviewable unless it occurs after a jury verdict of guilty. Again, that's not fully accurate. The important threshold is when the jury is sworn (as was pointed out above) She can dismiss the case before the jury is empanelled and it's appealable. Before the jury sits, the prosecution will raise every issue they see coming up in the trial as a pre-trial motion, to make sure they can appeal anything she goes wackyballs on. After the jury is sworn, the same motions and arguments will be repeated. At that point, the judge could start going wackyballs, yes, but she'd have to literally go "last week I said X, but now I say Y, even though nothing has changed." In such situations, though, the federal court procedure is apparently to grant a mistrial (since mistrials are the exception to double jeopardy). quote:Under present Federal statutes, the prosecution may only seek review from evidentiary rulings made before jeopardy has attached; consequently, any evidentiary ruling adverse to the prosecution made after the trial has begun is not appealable as an interlocutory ruling. The evidentiary matter can only be appealed after the verdict; however, since the prosecution would only appeal if the defendant is acquitted, appeal is precluded by the double jeopardy clause. The courts have addressed this problem in a number of ways. One circuit court has provided guidelines that specify which evidentiary issues must be decided before trial begins and which may be deferred. At least two district courts have developed a procedural device that converts unappealable mid-trial rulings into appealable pretrial ones through the grant of a mistrial. This note proposes that the problem be addressed by converting unappealable mid-trial suppression orders into appealable pretrial ones. 88 footnotes. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/reviewing-unreviewable-judge-federal-prosecution-appeals-mid-trial Basically, she's going to have to either rule on everything pre-trial (when it would be appealable still), or changing gears will create a mistrial. Interestingly, checking the local miami federal rules quote:Motions in criminal cases shall be filed and served within twenty-eight (28) days from the arraignment of the defendant to whom the motion applies So it looks like Florida deals with this issue by requiring issues to be raised long before trial starts Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 01:08 on Jun 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:01
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:But seriously, gently caress Cannon, but I don't think it's likely she'll just "lol dismissed." She would have done it last time. Doing it last time would have hurt Trump, since it was Trump bringing to her a case against the FBI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:02
|
|
|
I'm half expecting Trump to tweet out something like: "My attorney spoke to the very smart, very honest Judge on my case in Florida, and she personally promised us that she will guarantee a fair trial."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:04
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I'm half expecting Trump to tweet out something like: I'm personally more concerned about a juror pulling off some nullification than the judge going calvinball and acquitting him mid-trial.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:07
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It depends on their closeness to the facts of this case. If there's just a 38th thing stemming from his actions here that they didn't charge him with thinking they are being sneaky for a second go at him, he'd be protected by double jeopardy. If there's another set of secret documents that he, in a separate instance did similar stuff with, it's possible he could be charged with crimes related to those. More importantly, there's strong reason to think there's going to be a separate pending indictment for Bedminster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm personally more concerned about a juror pulling off some nullification than the judge going calvinball and acquitting him mid-trial. That's virtually guaranteed. He just needs one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I'm personally more concerned about a juror pulling off some nullification than the judge going calvinball and acquitting him mid-trial. I don't think you are going to get a jury to arrive at a unanimous decision saying that stealing classified documents isn't actually a crime and the laws stating such are null and void.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
ryde posted:She's on this case because she was involved with the case in the past. The DoJ filed paperwork that basically said "Yeah this case is related to this other case," and when that happens you get auto-assigned the judge that was on that other case. No, she wasn't. Bruce Reinhart was. She intervened despite having absolutely no jurisdiction in that case just because Trump asked her to. This was the entire basis of the Eleventh Circuit's smackdown of her. She got this case because she's a local judge and was randomly assigned to it, because nearly all the other judges in the region are either on limited service and have already heard their quota of cases for the year or are otherwise ineligible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:17
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I don't think you are going to get a jury to arrive at a unanimous decision saying that stealing classified documents isn't actually a crime and the laws stating such are null and void. Do you still think this if even one turbochud is on the jury?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
My gut feeling is that Cannon will put her thumb on scales every step of the way to help Trump, but won’t be so brazen as to blatantly trash the whole case in a single action.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Do you still think this if even one turbochud is on the jury? That's not how juries work
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Do you still think this if even one turbochud is on the jury? One turbochud is a mistrial. It takes all twelve to get acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:26
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:One turbochud is a mistrial. It takes all twelve to get acquittal. Right. A chain of mistrials is just as good as an acquittal from Trump's perspective anyway though. He's only got so many years left in that meat husk of his. edit: this is still worthwhile, the way to send Trump to jail is prosecute him on everything, everywhere, all at once. The prosecutors only need to win once, he has to win every time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
We also still have Georgia kicking around which honestly I'd like to see more in some ways because the next R president can't just pardon him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
cr0y posted:We also still have Georgia kicking around which honestly I'd like to see more in some ways because the next R president can't just pardon him. The next R governor can, though. Even if Kemp did define himself in opposition to Trump's election scheme, and hence Trump (at least in Trump's mind), he couldn't run next cycle due to term limits anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:47
|
|
|
I still think there's a better than even shot at Trump getting out of this scott free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:51
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The next R governor can, though. Even if Kemp did define himself in opposition to Trump's election scheme, and hence Trump (at least in Trump's mind), he couldn't run next cycle due to term limits anyway. In GA the governor cannot pardon, and the board that can can only do it after a sentence is served.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 01:52
|
|
|
ryde posted:She's on this case because she was involved with the case in the past. The DoJ filed paperwork that basically said "Yeah this case is related to this other case," and when that happens you get auto-assigned the judge that was on that other case. That's not what happened. She wasn't actually attached to the previous case. The case was originally filed in her jurisdiction and there are only a small number of judges. She was literally picked randomly from that small pool. It was bad luck
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:04
|
|
|
Fork of Unknown Origins posted:In GA the governor cannot pardon, and the board that can can only do it after a sentence is served. In a 5-4 (Georgia) decision...
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:15
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I still think there's a better than even shot at Trump getting out of this scott free. In the best case scenario he dies of age during the delay-delay-delay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:17
|
|
|
cr0y posted:In a 5-4 (Georgia) decision... I mean they could amend their constitution to do it but holy political suicide in a purple state.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:22
|
|
|
That's not a defense... https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1668790205829054464
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:You can almost never appeal an acquittal. I don't think this is as iron clad as you are making it out to be. The case law is extremely thin and there are enough differences between what we're describing here and the facts of Martin Linen that I could very well see the court entertaining an appeal and coming to the conclusion it didn't apply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That's not a defense... 'I've just been so busy' 'Posting from the shitter takes up so much time y'know' Trump claims he didn’t get ‘a chance’ to go through boxes "Former President Donald Trump claimed that hundreds of classified documents seized from his Florida resort belonged to him, and that he had not been given enough time to go through his personal papers and separate out the classified documents."
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:39
|
|
|
So the very first loving thing he does after being arrested is admit to the crime?!? Holy gently caress I thought he was stupid before, this is a new level
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
look sometimes you've had a long day and you just sweep all the classified nuclear secrets into a box to deal with later
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That's not a defense... And it’s thoroughly debunked by trump’s own words, by multiple witnesses and descriptions of the “beautiful mind” boxes that he wrote on. Discount Dracula fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jun 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:So the very first loving thing he does after being arrested is admit to the crime?!? Holy gently caress I thought he was stupid before, this is a new level I don't think he can deny he had the boxes at this point, so isn't the legal battle more about if he was allowed to have them / what he was allowed to do with them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:44 |
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The case was originally filed in her jurisdiction and there are only a small number of judges. She was literally picked randomly from that small pool. It was bad luck From what I understand, it was specifically and intentionally assigned to her. She was not randomly selected. The feds asked for random assignment and did not get it. The details as to why are still hazy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2023 03:39
|
|