|
It was a federal trial though, albeit applying NY state law. So nine jurors, but they had to be unanimous.
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
Skex posted:Maybe they didn't think that he was endowed enough to penetrate her while they were standing up given the whole toad thing. So sexual assault but not rape*. She reportedly testified that she couldn't tell whether it was his dick or a finger penetrating her, and so that could be it.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2023 06:58
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:Isn't one of the main things that Trump is repeating the remarks that were found to be liable on Tuesday. It's an interesting problem. Because on the one hand, yeah, this is exactly what Fox did that led to Dominion's suit: invite guests on who would predictably make defamatory statements and then ask them questions to elicit those statements. On the other hand, I'd be pretty uncomfortable with a liability regime that didn't allow direct broadcasting of the words of a leading presidential candidate. Would need to think long and hard about the lines to draw, because it can't just be "anyone running for President" given all the crazies, but it's not not a problem.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2023 11:15
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:Next time we draft a new constitution, maybe define something as a crime that people who have sworn an oath can be charged with. Because for people acting in good faith it's a solemn moment symbolizing the trust placed in them?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2023 06:54
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Also, they are randomly assigned to cases to prevent judge shopping. It's actually likely Cannon got the case *because* she handled the prior document suit. One of the exceptions to random assignment is if a judge has already handled a related case, they often give her/him subsequent cases since the judge and chambers are already somewhat up to speed on things.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:It shouldn't be. You can litigate in any federal court as long as you are a member of the Federal Bar. You don't need to be a member of the state bar in which that federal court sits. Not exactly. There's no such thing as the "Federal Bar," in the sense of an organization that handles the admission and discipline of federal lawyers. You're still a member of the bar of some state, and you're most commonly a member of the bar of the state the federal court is in, and if so you just apply to be a member of the bar of that federal court (it's a bureaucratic formality, you don't need to sit another bar exam or anything). For out-of-state lawyers, you can apply to be admitted to the bar of the federal court "pro hac vice" for just the one case if you're barred in another state. So the indictment being in SDFL instead of DDC isn't a reason he changed lawyers. The lawyers bring frustrated at Boris's gatekeeping and at Trump not listening to them are why they noped out.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2023 08:32
|
|
|
The Question IRL posted:From doing a very brief research into the topic, it is in theory possible in certain rare circumstances. There is. JNOV's (for some reason law peeps use he abbreviation for the Latin instead of the English) are appealable (unlike a jury verdict - you can appeal on the basis that the evidence was so fundamentally flawed that the judge should have not let the jury deliberate, but you can't appeal on the ground "the jury should have decided the other way). The standard is a hard one to reach, but it's not true that there's no recourse.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
Lord Harbor posted:Thanks for this. The idea that judges have 'one weird trick that prosecutors hate!!!' where they can just declare any defendant not guilty and that's it, no way to reverse or overturn or appeal that decision, seemed absolutely insane. Same thing, different name, and apologies for being imprecise. In a federal criminal trial it's actually a Rule 29 motion, for an entered judgment of acquittal. In a civil trial, either party can move for a directed verdict (pre-jury-deliberation) or JNOV (post). In a criminal trial, only the defense can, since the prosecutors being able to move for one would violate your right to a jury trial. It's often used in the context where there's not evidence about a specific element of the crime introduced, the argument being basically "hey, there's no evidence going to [X], and the jury would need to find [X] beyond a reasonable doubt, and since no reasonable jury could do so without evidence, let's all go home." And yes, R.29's are appealable. It's most often the defense appealing when they weren't granted.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 15:21
|
|
|
raminasi posted:Is this ever done to remedy improper acquittals? Everything you've described (in this and your other post) seems like it's a way to overturn a conviction, or is only relevant for civil trials. No. Nothing at all can ever overturn a jury acquittal. But an acquittal requires a unanimous jury in the exact same way a guilty verdict does. Sneaking one obstinate chud on the jury can create a mistrial, where everyone would have to start over again, but not an acquittal. So if all twelve jurors vote for Trump, yeah, it's over. But I don't think that's very likely given that the evidence was enough to make the most cautious, slow, careerist prosecutors in the world, DoJ employees, indict a former POTUS before a known-friendly judge. They've got a case here. And yeah, you're right about this all going one way. In the criminal context a judge can only overturn a conviction and make it a directed acquittal which, again, is appealable. You have a sixth amendment right to be convicted by a jury, which is why this can only go that way.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Someone should hunt down a cite for the last time a judge issued a directed verdict for acquittal in a federal trial. It might not have ever happened. Happened a few months ago, in April: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/news...nt-of-acquittal They're not incredibly uncommon in a couple of contexts, like securities law or antitrust, where it's quite technical. You're not going to ever see one for something like drug trafficking unless there's a career ending gently caress-up by a prosecutor. (Sorry for the double post, but it's a lot easier when phone posting to reply on multiple subjects this way)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2023 17:14
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:question for lawyers in here: what qualifications exactly would you even need for a lawyer to be considered capable of taking on this case? that's got to be a pretty short list of people even capable of defending him? Yup. As noted above you need a security clearance at a sufficient level to deal with the information, and there aren't all that many lawyers around with one of those, and a large fraction of them still work for the feds. For the arraignment and procedural steps going on right now I fail to see why one of his normal lawyers can't just get admitted pro hac, but I never did much crim work, so it's not my area of expertise as to from what point you actually need the ringers around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Has a federal trial ever been televised? Magistrate already denied a motion by various media orgs to have cameras in the room today, sorry op
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2023 11:11
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Meanwhile the Texas bar punted on Sydney Powells hearing because of some hyper technical reading of Georgias statutes that they almost certainly got wrong but didn’t ask to clarify from, you know, Georgia. So she gets to keep on being one of the worlds worst lawyers. Texas is just really committed to the free market, man. All the information is out there, you want to hire Sidney loving Powell you do you brother.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2023 18:04
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I think for federal charges you don’t go to prison until your appeals are exhausted. You think wrong. The default rule is that you are serving your sentence while appealing. You can move to stay the sentence, but it's not automatic.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2023 08:14
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Republican's real strength is that the Dems fall so far short of what many want from them, but they can't capitalize on that when they cause so much anger, and pose a genuine threat to American democracy, that all the people mad at the Dem establishment still come out because "gently caress Joe Biden, but ultra-gently caress Trump, at least if it's Biden the federal government will just ignore my trans rear end" or whatever equivalent suits. This is compounded as they also have the Court, which means that even many of the things Dems do when in power get yoinked away. What's that, Biden actually impalements a (narrow) student debt forgiveness? Major questions doctrine says no. So the Dems are further neutered into the let's-at-least-not-make-poo poo-worse option.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2023 08:38
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm just imagining what a case like this would do to the typical public defenders' office I would, however, love to see a criminal conspiracy that generated 11 million pages of potential evidence but for which defendants still qualified for public defenders.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2023 10:29
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:"Jeffrey B. Clark (“Defendant”) hereby gives notice and removes the two actions listed below to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division:" He’s claiming that he has a statutory right of removal as a federal employee who was operating “within the scope” of his federal duties. There’s a whole hell of a lot of things that are basically designed to prevent hostile state courts from loving with the operation of the federal government, and granting federal employees a right to always be heard by a federal judge is one. The question that federal judge has to answer is if proposing to the President of the Goddamn United States “hey, make me acting AG and I’ll send a memo from the DoJ to state legislatures lying about evidence of fraud” is “within the scope” of the head of one of the DoJ’s civil litigation divisions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Gort posted:Are massively-inflated-to-the-point-where-a-judge-can-call-it-obvious-and-throw-it-out property values a common problem in the USA? Inflated, likely. Massively inflated to where a judge can say as a matter of law this is fraudulent and we don’t even need a trial, that’s still quite an achievement.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Well I guess I will have to give them a point for originality, if nothing else, because that is one wackadoodle legal 'concept'. Pro-tip: any time a lawyer cites “constitutional principles” or “history and tradition” on a point, it’s because she doesn’t have any applicable law to point to. It’s the equivalent to “bang the table” in the old joke.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 11:14
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I find it amazing how it's totally normal to be given audit reports and financial documents that contain non-reliance warnings. You request these documents to rely on them! No one reads these because they're looking for fiction. The law basically recognises this. There’s a minor good-faith mistake or restatements, you make them and it’s copacetic. You’re just lying out your rear end and then rely on the disclaimer to save you, you’re in trouble. The disclaimer is only of legal effect until it isn’t, basically; “hey, we’re all humans, don’t count on this to be perfect” is what they protect against, not intentional fraud.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2023 12:14
|
|
|
Murgos posted:That said, Trump isn’t arguing in any of these cases that he didn’t do the things he’s accused of. All of his arguments that I am aware of is that it was okay that the did it or at least protected from repercussions of having done it. Which, unintuitively, delays the actual trial more. If the case is “he did it” versus “I didn’t do it,” it’s largely a question of credibility and evidence and can move to trial quicker. In a case where the defence is “yes I did it, but it wasn’t a crime, and I have immunity if it was, and this is malicious prosecution,” the way procedure works is that all of those arguments have to be settled in motion practice before trial, because a trial is about disputes of fact, not law.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2023 22:25
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Wait I thought the Colorado thing was only to determine if he could be in the GOP primary? It’s actually not absurd at all. In unrelated contexts, such as federal rulemaking and supervision of agencies, it’s a noncontroversial element of the whole enterprise that POTUS is not an “officer” of the United States and rules that apply to officers don’t apply to her/him. This body of law isn’t directly applicable to the 14A question, but using a “lay” definition of the word “officer” doesn’t actually directly apply either. I’m not saying it’s an interpretation I endorse, but a reading that the political check of a President being elected nationally is a sufficient check, while Senators, Congresscritters, and inferior officers are all chosen by individual states or other local means and so are more susceptible to a treason-friendly subset of the US thus needing the explicit ban absolutely passes the small test. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:what does this mean? like...in the realm of reality how can you make this argument? "she wasn't violent before she got to the violence therefore she was never violent" is...AN argument i guess? She wasn’t violent when she was too far away from anyone to be violent to them, and by the time she was in the same room as anyone to be violent to them, she had a hole in her head preventing her from doing any violence. QED she was never violent.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2024 22:48
|
|
|
Caros posted:Eventually is sort of a relative term, though. Alex Jones is currently in bankruptcy proceedings as they determine exactly how much of EVERYTHING HE’S EVER OWNED is going to be parcelled out to all the various groups he owes money to, and, since intentional torts are nondischargable in bankruptcy, they’re also going to carve out large pieces of EVERYTHING HE’S EVER GOING TO OWN too. It’s good that the monopoly of violence isn’t capable of stripping money away from folks on a whim, even when it means it takes longer than would be ideal for people who really deserve it, but AJ is not a good example of someone who isn’t deep deep into the process of being hooker in Tijuana during Fleet Week hosed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:And what the gently caress is taking the DC Circuit so long? Either: A) the judges agree on the major issues and are sending memos back and forth about specific statements, paragraphs, etc in a draft opinion; or B) the votes are in and one judge who disagrees is drafting a concurrence/dissent. And similarly emailing memos back and forth; or C) one of these two has happened and the clerks are emailing memos back and forth checking individual case cites and fixing typos and other clean-up. Courts only move quickly when they have to. If nobody’s strapped to an execution gurney or bulldozers aren’t literally moving in, folks still go home at 5:30.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2024 15:53
|
|
|
Caros posted:https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1754925014762066412?t=fr3-VJl7pjuuwWoFoFBgRg&s=19 And, in a sweet little detail, he’s set the deadline for “you bastards tell me what you actually know to avoid sanctions” early enough such that the lawyers will have to file these statements before they’ve seen what facts Weisselburg is admitting by his guilty plea.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2024 22:02
|
|
|
gregday posted:Who is this guy? Sepiroth really let himself go
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:I thought he was free to appeal because as hosed as our legal system is it realizes "unable to appeal a ruling unless you pay" is bullshit and paying the penalty just puts a stay on having everything he owns sold. It’s this. He’s totally free to appeal within the relevant deadlines and only would have to pay various court fees. The bond is necessary not to appeal, but to stay the execution of the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2024 11:27
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Gifting isn't donating. Checkmate libs. But then Pmurt can’t brag that the majority of his donations come from African-Americans, which you know he would in the smarmiest way possible
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 08:23
|
|
|
mdemone posted:That's a nuclear option and Smith will wait until Cannon makes a decision that warrants such extraordinary action. She's inching up to that line IMO but judges have very wide discretion for a reason and that has to be respected. It’s not a nuclear option, it’s an option that simply doesn’t exist. There’s no such thing as a motion to make the judge move faster, and any appellate court would laugh either a mandamus or a motion to reassign out of court, because they, too, are judges, and as judges don’t want piddly little people like litigants getting to control their schedule.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 21:52
|
|
|
dr_rat posted:So can a judge just be lazy as hell, hear bugger all cases and do gently caress all and there's nothing anyone can do? I assume as they are hired by the court (the state/justice department?) at some stage someone will just fire them. This actually happened at a court I used to practice before semi-regularly. Judge who the rumour mill said had decision paralysis. Basic motion decisions would take months, come out with multi-page footnotes and strange digressions, cases would take years longer than before other judges of the same court. As it turns out, the solution is this judge retires on day one of full pension vesting and the cases get reassigned to still-active judges to sort the messes out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 08:09
|
|
|
gregday posted:They probably would, but an identical order coming from Trump to murder Biden would have more sway with members of the US military. Maybe among air force officers, but you do realize that the majority of enlisted are young and minority? (It’s close, but the enlisted corps is majority minority based on a quick google). Two demographics that definitely skew blind obedience to Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
InsertPotPun posted:yeah yeah yeah. literally the same thing that's said every time it's brought up. "you have to let trump win so he'll lose!!" Except that the judge’s own decision literally says “Georgia law on this point is unclear and there aren’t many decisions about it” regarding the appearance of a conflict as an independent ground to disqualify a prosecutor in the absence of an actual conflict. He openly framed it as “I think this is how this works,” of course he’s going to have the appellate court, who’s job it is to settle these sort of questions, settle this question.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 08:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Presumably all his real estate is already heavily encumbered. Very likely this. Particularly for everything Trump is a minority owner only or in a licensing agreement with. In those situations, owners often aren’t allowed to sell or pledge or otherwise transfer ownership of their shares without permission of a majority of all owners, so that the ownership as a whole can always control the coalition. Think of it like owning ten percent of a sports franchise - yes you own it, but you can’t easily use it to back a loan; neither Bank of America nor MLB want BoA to be running a baseball team.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:"if you disbar me i'll lose income and suffer real consequences" kind of seems like the point of disbarment It is, absent other considerations. But the six amendment has been read to protect both your absolute right to a lawyer and your right to, within reason, choose who that lawyer is. I don’t actually know the case law on the specific interaction between disbarment and criminal proceedings (since the one normally follows the other, rather than happening concurrently), but it’s not actually a batshit argument to say “i have willing clients and I’m using their fees to fund my ongoing criminal defence.”
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 06:48
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Wire transfer, probably. You can move $175 million from your bank to theirs without opening yourself up to a cool badass armored car heist Also makes the resultant SAR easier to file.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Trump is suing Judge Juan Merchan: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/nyregion/trump-hush-money-trial-delay.html?partner=slack&smid=sl-share And yet another lawyer willingly signing up to get sanctioned. How does he do it? To contextualise: you literally can’t sue a judge for anything they did in their role as a judge. They are absolutely immune. Not qualifiedly immune, like cops, but literally absolutely immune, even if you can prove malfeasance
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2024 18:20
|
|
|
Lammasu posted:I wish I could ask Eastman what the gently caress he expected to happen. Step 1: forment coup Step 2: ??? Step 3: profit
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2024 06:42
|
|
|
KillHour posted:This is why I only tell you, my closest friends, about the numerous litany of crimes I have and will continue to commit on an almost daily basis. Username checks out.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 19:48 |
|
|
BDawg posted:Chubb was backing the Carroll bond. Correct answer to the wrong question. Chubb’s collateral for the Carroll bond was reportedly Trump’s Schwab brokerage account. I doubt this is the same account, nobody would consider an already pledged account realisable collateral, but who tf knows with all the stupid poo poo that’s been going on with this one.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2024 13:05
|
|