|
Barrel Cactaur posted:Have you completely lost it? You would be better off eliminating elected judges (If anything it should be as far as possible form politics, a bipartisan committee or just random selection from qualified lawyers is probably the best this country can manage to avoid attempts at corrupting the impartiality of it) and eliminating the permanent professional or worse ELECTED prosecutor before trying that. A bar pooling system would do a LOT to cut down on structural bias in favor of the prosecution or at least make it so the cops cant corruptly collude with just the one guy to stitch up cases. I didn't say that's the limit of what would like, I just said it's one thing that might be helpful to most.
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I didn't say that's the limit of what would like, I just said it's one thing that might be helpful to most. How?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 02:59
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:But while they're waiting to do a search, the documents could get moved or disappeared in the meantime, seems pretty risky. They could (and should) have searched Bedminster immediately and then worked on separate indictment, no? They might want to raid Bedminster for a separate investigation, which means they would need to establish probable cause to get a warrant for that investigation. That way they could pick up all the Jan 6 crime notebooks to go with the stolen files.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 03:00
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:How? Because a lot of jury strategy involves getting the most clueless and gullible people you can in order to make swaying them your way easier, especially in criminal trials. Most people don't know the law, even when instructed by the judge. I don't think it's a perfect idea, as I've said, because I do enjoy swaying juries myself when I'm on them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 03:03
|
|
|
Timmy Age 6 posted:How? It's worth noting that most countries don't have jury trials in any significant quantity. If it's not decided by a single judge it's a panel of them: some use lay judges who are not trained as judges/lawyers but are selected as capable professionals rather than the literal most uninformed people you can find in a random name search we use in the US. I don't have a strong opinion on changing the nature of trial by jury in the United States, I'm just saying it's not as weirdly out there as it sounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 04:02
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:What are the odds of Donald being found unfit to stand trial due to advanced senility? Deteriorata posted:zero Low % a court finding him unfit. Zero % of Donald dropping his ego to even consider it. Seeing that his father had the same cognitive issues it’s probably even more of a no go. If he were smart this is the groundwork he should be laying, but, you know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Because a lot of jury strategy involves getting the most clueless and gullible people you can in order to make swaying them your way easier, especially in criminal trials. Most people don't know the law, even when instructed by the judge. Killer robot posted:It's worth noting that most countries don't have jury trials in any significant quantity. If it's not decided by a single judge it's a panel of them: some use lay judges who are not trained as judges/lawyers but are selected as capable professionals rather than the literal most uninformed people you can find in a random name search we use in the US. Right to a jury trial is part of the Sixth Amendment in the US. I don't think we're going to see any changes there in the foreseeable future. Automatic Slim posted:Low % a court finding him unfit. Zero % of Donald dropping his ego to even consider it. Seeing that his father had the same cognitive issues it’s probably even more of a no go. It would be very difficult to argue that he's unfit for trial, but is fit to be President again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 04:07
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:It's worth noting that most countries don't have jury trials in any significant quantity. If it's not decided by a single judge it's a panel of them: some use lay judges who are not trained as judges/lawyers but are selected as capable professionals rather than the literal most uninformed people you can find in a random name search we use in the US. The vast vast majority of cases in the U.S. don't have verdicts rendered by juries either. They are fairly rare. Bench trials are the most common for petty crimes and even when they do get a jury trial, the most common disposition is a plea before the jury can even render a verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Right to a jury trial is part of the Sixth Amendment in the US. I don't think we're going to see any changes there in the foreseeable future. Oh, I'm not disputing that they're unlikely to go away. I just mean that they're not a necessary part of a functioning justice system and further that "what if juries were selected from a pool of skilled and trusted people instead of randos" is not a new idea or one any more associated with abuse than the one we have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 04:17
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:So specifically the problem is having a designated [place] prosecutor, rather than that there are lawyers who specialize in prosecutions? Or both? Both really, but the structure of the US means inevitably that [Place] prosecutor is going to be at least a state level issue (though breaking up the structure that currently goes down to the courthouse level would help). The prosecution only criminal lawyer creates an ultimately myopic point of view and the whole structure pressures the prosecutors office into "Tough on Crime" at the expense of actual justice, both causing them to pursue weak cases around notorious crimes and giving them perverse incentives and deep relationships to bodies that should be nominally independent. Its the failure mode of any bureaucracy, the police-prosecutor relationship as it stand best serves the prestige of those in direct control of it by working to maximize convictions. Disrupting one or the other would certainly help, but both are structural issues. Localities is only really a problem due to scale, its way harder to hide corruption in a pool of a dozen people that an office that has one person tightly controlling it. Killer robot posted:Oh, I'm not disputing that they're unlikely to go away. I just mean that they're not a necessary part of a functioning justice system and further that "what if juries were selected from a pool of skilled and trusted people instead of randos" is not a new idea or one any more associated with abuse than the one we have. I mean, maybe for cases directly related to some question of professional ethics/practice? Certainly I would actually be inclined to agree in, for example, malpractice cases; where jury trials are avoided like the plague because the juries are too easy to sway on the plaintiff story regardless of any actual guilt. But I don't think it would ever be a great idea in criminal law, not when actual jail time is on the line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 04:52
|
|
|
So now that the guy's been arraigned, what is the next step of this whole...thing? What happens next trials-wise, and when?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 05:21
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Right to a jury trial is part of the Sixth Amendment in the US. I don't think we're going to see any changes there in the foreseeable future. Same as the Killer robot, I have no belief it's ever going to happen
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 05:25
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:So now that the guy's been arraigned, what is the next step of this whole...thing? What happens next trials-wise, and when? They will have a bunch of pretrial motions to try to bring in or exclude evidence. I imagine that they will have a scheduling conference at some point to set up deadlines for discovery. I would honestly be surprised if the trial is this year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Nuclear Spoon posted:fond memories of the shkreli trial The way Trump gets out of this is to disrespect Wu-Tang, then it absolutely precludes any ability for him to get a fair trial
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 07:50
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:The way Trump gets out of this is to disrespect Wu-Tang, then it absolutely precludes any ability for him to get a fair trial I would indeed agree that they are not anything to gently caress with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 07:53
|
|
|
I think that's a reasonable consensus
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 08:19
|
|
|
Xand_Man posted:I think that's a reasonable consensus We're prepared to stipulate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 08:54
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:As a reminder, a few days ago Trump totally ignored her when he got of a plane and she was on the tarmac. She just doesn't have any... pride. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 11:24
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:The way Trump gets out of this is to disrespect Wu-Tang, then it absolutely precludes any ability for him to get a fair trial Of all the secrets that he could reveal
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 14:31
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:Of all the secrets that he could reveal speaking of what ever happened to that album shkreli bought
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 14:41
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:speaking of what ever happened to that album shkreli bought I thought the government seized it and we would all own it
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
Snowy posted:I thought the government seized it and we would all own it The government seized it, but they sold it back in 2021. They basically seized everything he had of value, sold it, and then used that money to pay towards the restitution he owed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 14:47
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That's not a defense... The party of Personal Responsibility....until one of them is held personally responsible
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 14:49
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:So now that the guy's been arraigned, what is the next step of this whole...thing? What happens next trials-wise, and when? conservatives feel more compelled to support him and further radicalize, jury selection is an absolute trip and a half, we grind through the sometimes fascinating and generally rigorous procedure of law, more and more information comes out about what evidence and testimony the DoJ has collected on trump, we spend time with televised(?) trials where it is clearly obvious that trump broke the law with comical regularity and brazenness, he is either convicted or it's a hung jury because the defense helped a diehard chud sneak into the jury (in which case we repeat). elections happen and throw a novelty size monkey wrench into the whole things. i begin testing out politics drunkposting as a compensation mechanism for the insanity of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 14:55
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:The way Trump gets out of this is to disrespect Wu-Tang, then it absolutely precludes any ability for him to get a fair trial ps I'll have a chance to read in a few days, but otherwise this reference is too obscure to interpret.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 15:17
|
|
|
PhantomOfTheCopier posted:Can you explain this to a dumm goon porpoise like me? Does T need to like the album to respect it? IE wtf are you talking about? What legal thing must T 'disrespect' to get out of this and how does that make the trial unfair? It's a reference to the Shkreli trial https://www.spin.com/2017/08/martin-shkreli-jury-selection-transcript-wu-tang-clan/
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The government seized it, but they sold it back in 2021. National Treasure 3 is going to be about Nicolas Cage tracking down this album. Professor Beetus fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jun 15, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
Kavros posted:conservatives feel more compelled to support him and further radicalize, jury selection is an absolute trip and a half, we grind through the sometimes fascinating and generally rigorous procedure of law, more and more information comes out about what evidence and testimony the DoJ has collected on trump, we spend time with televised(?) trials where it is clearly obvious that trump broke the law with comical regularity and brazenness, he is either convicted or it's a hung jury because the defense helped a diehard chud sneak into the jury (in which case we repeat). elections happen and throw a novelty size monkey wrench into the whole things. i begin testing out politics drunkposting as a compensation mechanism for the insanity of it all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:National Treasure 3 is going to be about Nicolas Cage tracking down this. I can just hear him saying "Wu-Tang Secret" in my mind right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Because a lot of jury strategy involves getting the most clueless and gullible people you can in order to make swaying them your way easier, especially in criminal trials. Most people don't know the law, even when instructed by the judge. This is something I've never understood. Why is it that both sides always try to get stupid jurors? Shouldn't they realize that a dumb person would be just as easy for the opposing attorney to sway against them? In a case like this, where the law is 100% clear that Trump is guilty as gently caress, shouldn't the prosecution push for some smart, legally educated people on the jury who can just run down the list of charges and go, "Yup, that looks right"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Both sides get a say in whether or not a potential juror should be excluded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:This is something I've never understood. Why is it that both sides always try to get stupid jurors? Shouldn't they realize that a dumb person would be just as easy for the opposing attorney to sway against them? Because there isn't a way to test for intelligence or specific biases. So, during voir dire each attorney just tries to pick the people they think would be the most blank slate. They aren't necessarily looking for stupid people, they are looking for people with no knowledge/bias/life experience on the subject at hand because that makes them more likely to shape their opinion based on the facts of the case and the arguments made during the trial. If someone is an expert on something, they may have existing biases about it that they will be unlikely to change regardless of evidence. That's why saying you are an expert at something related to the case, have been a victim of the same crime, have a bias of some kind, or you believe in things like jury nullification (which indicate that you won't change your mind regardless of the facts of the case or specific arguments) are the fastest ways to get kicked out of a jury pool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:36
|
|
|
I bet'cha the judge will grant all of the Defense's challenges for cause and almost none of the Prosecution's
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:That's not a defense... I didn't have a chance to file my taxes
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Probably not a winning strategy to hinge your defense on something disproved by the evidence already laid out in the indictment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:This is something I've never understood. Why is it that both sides always try to get stupid jurors? Shouldn't they realize that a dumb person would be just as easy for the opposing attorney to sway against them? People who are qualified to make their own judgments on the legal issues involved are impossible for lawyers to sway, and lawyers on both sides hate this equally because they want their arguments to be the driving force behind the verdict and not the unknowable opinions in a juror's mind. Thus, jurors who can be lead are preferred overall.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
cr0y posted:I didn't have a chance to file my taxes I didn't have a chance to not steal the car.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
"But think of all the people I DIDN'T kill!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 17:58
|
|
|
Angry_Ed posted:I can just hear him saying "Wu-Tang Secret" in my mind right now. "If we can't track it down in three days, they're going to reveal the Wu-Tang Secret!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 07:43 |
|
|
This isn't exactly related specifically to the Trump trial but I'm sure it will be. So if lots of evidence gets shared in the public domain, like the news, then what is the point of trying to get some evidence inadmissible in court? Like the jury can't unknow something they saw on the news that was supposed to be evidence but now isn't. Do the jurors have to pretend they don't factor it into a decision when surely in the back of their mind they do?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2023 18:17
|
|