I expected to write about the Proud Boys trial this evening. The jury is now deliberating after almost four months in trial. The issues are serious—the allegation is that the Proud Boys, including leader Enrique Tarrio, formed a private army and agreed to use force to interfere with the certification of the 2020 election results. The five defendants now face judgment from a jury of their peers.
What a perfectly illuminating discussion of the legal issues involved in the Carroll and Proud Boys Trials. I especially appreciate your showing how all of the trails of evidence are being woven into alogical sequence leading to the prosecution of 45 on conspiracy charges. I take some hope from this, and of course, the chickens and watermellon are icing on the cake.
Not overboard @ all!!! I suspect many of your subscribers, like me, are hungry to know the next level of detail in the law beyond the short summaries in the general press. My background is math, so I love seeing the logical way these details hang together to bend the arc toward fair trials and justice. I've never seen the rules of evidence explained so clearly.
Not at all overboard. I follow law, but court procedures and rule is a whole nuther aspect. There are things that I "sort of" grasped, but pretty fuzzy. I'm glad you are a rules of evidence nerd, because now I understand a whole lot more of this stuff than I did. Thank you!
No, thank you Ms. Vance for your elucidation. I'm the extremist who always fact-checks everything and then write nonsense like my comment above, but I did look up the rules of evidence you cited and the surrounding reasons for the rules' establishment and court precedent and went however it led me. So I am always grateful for information. But no offense, I always try to verify everything as best as I can. But you give me a lot of info, I've never felt you ever led me astray because I've always found you to be correct.
"There was no evidence of direct communication between Trump and the Proud Boys at trial, although their actions that day were animated by his public statements."
As far as I'm concerned, here's the evidence:
"Proud Boys, stand back and stand down." Donald J. Trump, 9/29/20
“See you all January 6th, it’s going to be wild” Donald J. Trump, 12/20/20
absolutely. and from Jan 6, after talking about showing the size of the crowd and thanking people for coming , he launches it, We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen." then the litany, and the nonsense of fraud before the "fight like hell".. Taken out of context? Well in context it starts off we are not going to let it (the electoral count) happen. Right up front, he tells the crowd we won't let the count happen and if anyone knows a way, that he hasn't already tried, telling the courts didn't come through, the states didn't come through, enough of congress won't come through, and Pence won't come through", so what way is left? Marching to the capital and fighting like hell to not let the electoral college be counted that he had started the speech by saying they, and he were not going to let it happen. No ambiguity when you put it in context. No ambiguity at all. Never was any. From the call to telling the proud boys to stand by.
Brandenburg says speech cannot be curbed unless it is to "incite imminent lawless action."
Not only did it incite imminent lawless action, lawless action was incited.
I have always thought congress should not have gone home in the early morning after, they should have immediately voted on immediate removal of Trump from office and sent the police to handcuff him and escort him to the city jail. Sometimes, (I think) justice has to act in an emergency and sort out the legal niceties later. We all know what happened in Uvalde when it didn't. While nothing of the caliber of killing kids in a school, there are no parallels here except that justice did not act quickly. But to do so when imminent threat is perceived is also vital. I think January 6th was an imminent threat and one in which the legal processes should have been suspended. There have been suspensions in the past, and they can be condemned afterwards when people are safe from terror.
I'm not talking of police using violence against singular individuals who are threatening no one besides possibly the police themselves(often not even that). But if the community's children are being shot, or the nation's capital is being attacked, then liberties of the individual become irrelevant. If Trump was out of office and behind bars on Jan 7 much of the later chaos that has occurred possibly wouldn't have happened. He could still have had his day in court where he would have been entitled to all of the safeguards of the judicial system. But he should have been locked up and jailed and prevented from instituting a second attempted insurrection. Even Hitler was arrested on the night he attacked the government and convicted swiftly. A sympathetic judge freed him. But all I have found from history is when such coups are not prosecuted quickly and the leaders segregated from their supporters, a second, victorious assault follows.
Wonderful article, Joyce. E. Jean Carroll is a brave woman. I try to imagine being in her shoes, and how scary it must be to give this testimony. First time in our history a former president is accused of rape and battery. Your detailed description of the legal process unfolding in this historic trial is also so helpful. It is riveting really. The Proud Boys information is also key to a deeper understanding of what happened on January 6. I await that trial’s outcome. Thank you, for your knowledge and humor. I love the photo of your conspiring chickens. They are beautiful....
I’m looking at Jean Carroll pretty much the way I looked at Anita Hill. A strong whistleblower trying to get the right thing done. With the burden of proof down at the preponderance level, as opposed to all reasonable doubt level, I think she has a prayer. Trump’s defense, such as it publicly is…that somebody would’ve noticed if he was banging a woman in the dressing room… is a lame defense. I think it’s entirely credible, with the Bergdorf staff according their star customer celebrity Trump plenty of privacy as he stalked (er, shopped) the store. And when he went into the dressing room with her, I’m envisioning being on an airplane awkwardly looking the other way as a couple is clearly making a run for the mile high club in the bathroom. Hope Carroll gets more satisfaction than Anita Hill ever did in Joe Biden’s judiciary committee. I believe both women here. Never believed Thomas never believed Trump.
I promise she wouldn't have been the first woman to be handled like that by a man in a department store. To your point, sales people know to turn a blind eye to "celebrities" behaving poorly.
Erica, “behaving badly” and rape are very different. He did to E. Jean what he said you can do when you are like him: above the law, unfettered libido, fame, rich….no one saw him do anything, because he pushed her into a dressing room on an empty floor just before closing. He was the wolf waiting for the lamb. And please, don’t impugn the staff. I have worked in “sales” and we would NEVER ignore someone manhandling a client.
And you would have most likely been fired in 1996, with little to no recourse. I too worked in sales, and while I would have have said something, I had the luxury of doing it at a young age. Most working in retail sales do not.
Just an observation. The chickens come home to roost when conspiracy is charged because it enables the government to introduce the most damaging evidence of all, co-conspirator hearsay. Because the linchpin of many federal offenses is intent, nothing is more damning than a defendant's own words.
Thank you for distilling what is taking place in both trials, with such clarity. Neither the Washington Post nor the NYTimes gave the details you did of the Carroll trial.
On another note, I’m really appreciating your chicken photos. They are a beautiful lot. We are in Kasbach-Ohlenberg, a tiny village not far from Bonn, Germany. Around the corner are a yard of friendly chickens and a short walk away, even more, with the ability to purchase their beautiful, multi-colored eggs. It’s not only beautiful and scenic here, but deliciously quiet. Thank you for all you do, Joyce.
Thanks for your detailed explanation of the statues and their meanings in E.Jeans case. Prayers for her persistence in making sure sharing her truth finally made its way to the witness stand. She is one tough lady! 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼.
To the proud boys case, may KARMA have a field day👏👏👏.
The chickens are a welcome diversion from the chaos😎
I hope E Jean Carroll feels the support coming her way from all of us who realize the strength and bravery required to take on a corrupt, powerful, criminal abuser like trump. No matter what, she is already a winner and he is already a loser.
This was SO helpful! I don’t think I completely understood why what charges stick to the Proud Boys matters to Trump’s trial.
I’m also fascinated by the specificity of this law! I guess I’ve only heard people reference specific laws or summarize them, but I had never read an actual law as it is written. Excuse my ignorance, but I guess I thought all laws were sort of vague and up for interpretation, but that seems rock solid to me. I’m also amazed that someone was smart enough to sit around and write laws, to recognize the need for law and order. I assume the first laws were written in biblical times, but who writes laws now? I want a job doing this! This is my dream job to sit around imagining dangerous scenarios and every possible version of that same scenario taking curve ball turns and to write guardrails by which to prevent all of this from happening. I have anxiety and do this anyway for free (I’m a {failed😝} fiction writer, and a Comp Lecturer during the day). Why hadn’t I realized this before?--I didn’t realize you could study all this but duh, this is what you teach in law school?!?! I also bet this means many of your law students write fiction because this is the same path I take when writing. Huh. A bit over 40 and still learning everyday. The more you know!
Go to law school! Run for office! Write laws! Don’t let age stop you. I went to grad school for software engineering, nights, one course at a time, at 50. It changed my life.
Yes. I was 35 when I started law school, with a 5 month old baby. My class was filled with women my age and over, often spurred to law by their divorces. And older men, too. It is NEVER too late.
Carmen, do it! I went through college as a single mom, working and saving and taking courses. At one point I did work-study for the local public tv station, from studio to graphics. The public affairs director asked me if I'd like to do research for a documentary on waste and recycling. YOU BETCHA! My research revealed a much more complex picture than he envisioned, and it changed not only the documentary, but me. I knew that if I ever got the chance to go to grad school, I wanted to study environmental science and management. I did it!
I was 42 when I started grad school, and during my 2nd term I began working for the State of Washington's Dept of Ecology. Later for other agencies and non-profits. I loved what I did I'm 80 now, but if I could, I'd go to VT Law School and study environmental law and equity. I just became a Justice of the Peace in my town; not the same thing, but it'll do. In the meantime, I still go to the law to understand what it has to say on the various issues in my town and state. I've done that throughout my career, and no reason to stop now.
You clearly have the kind of mind that "gets" law: you just haven't had the exposure to it that I had. And yet your mind has grasped the intent and meaning of law without that training! There are various ways for people to study law, and in some states you can still become a lawyer by "reading law"- that is, working with a lawyer who oversees your studies. You could become a para-legal.
And if the legislative process is your thing, watch them and learn the process of making law. You could aim at becoming a legislative aide, or part of the legislative team (not all lawyers) who go over every submitted bill with a fine tooth comb to determine their potential impacts. In other words, imagining those dangerous scenarios and curve balls and creating guardrails to prevent them from unintended consequences. Legislators NEED people with minds like yours.
My cousin went to VT Law for their environmental concentration. He's now General Counsel for the Department of Housing and Community Development for the State of Vermont.
I hope this doesn't sound bleak but with the population shrinking and a good thirty or so percent of our population being Trump-crazed lunatics, I've started to wonder if the responsible ones among us shouldn't begin preparing to fill in the necessary gaps that are sure to come. Mostly I'm thinking of the medical field. We need more doctors, so I've thought about going to med school even though I doubt I could get through the math requirements for that degree. (I'm word-oriented: BA and MA in lit, MFA in Creative Writing, fiction.) Just in case, it seems a portion of us should help safe-guard against this eventual hole.
I teach 18-21 year olds in their first college writing classes and have been (if I include grad school) for 21 years. I'm trying to ring this alarm: 20 years ago my classes were at least 3/4 wannabe doctors or k-12 teachers. I no longer get students who want to be doctors, and I now only have approximately two students per class who want to be a teacher. I don't know if the general public is not aware but even in as few as five years, well....yeah, I'm worried! Enrollment is tanking across the nation; this idea that college is only where rich yuppies go to be indoctrinated by socialists and that "real Americans" work with their hands and have jobs that involve getting dirty has taken hold in fat too many families.
Hi Joyce. The chicks photo with the watermelon 🍉 is so cute. I never knew this about chicks or perhaps you redefine possibility in their world and ours. Thanks for updating us on the Proud Boys. And I have to say Ms. Carroll is very courageous. I wish her justice for us all 🇺🇸
A very brave, courageous woman serving as an example to us all. May we all use her example of courage to fight back - not only against physical violence - but against the GOP who are trying to control our health care decisions, our voting rights, veteran rights, LGBTQ, trans rights, and silencing not only our voices, but the voices we elect to speak for us on legislative floors. E Jean Carroll - is all of us and I'm so very proud to stand with her in this moment.
I so appreciate your explanations of the law being deployed, the rules of evidence for example, seems it was set up to be abundantly fair, keeping the focus on allowing the substantive in and keeping the extraneous out..Preserving the attention of the jury on the facts of the matter without distraction..
Loved the conspiracy exercise with the chickens, watermelon has taken on a new meaning..🐓🍉
I did see a rather unsettling analysis of some of the public facing goings on in the Carroll matter on the 4/26 YouTube airing of Legal AF, with attorneys Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo..While I am hoping Carroll prevails, it was explained quite thoughtfully that it is not a slam dunk.. 🤞
Thank you so much for the legal education and background I need in order to formulate a more than empirical line of thinking. Regarding E. Jean Carroll and The Proud Boys, I mull over the thought, "if only we could turn testosterone into a renewable energy source. If only ...".
“For those of you looking for a quick refresher on conspiracy law while we wait, there is this post from last July, where my chickens were accommodating enough to demonstrate the basic principles involved.“
It’s an excellent post worth reading, insightful, great analogy of how conspiracy law works as well as how it applies and/ or doesn’t apply. Using the chickens as the “actors” to show how it all works offers the readers (us) a little levity as well as a lighthearted look at, and explanation of, a very serious matter.
Everyone should read it, whether it’s your first time or your second time, to better understand conspiracy law as well as a get a bit of reprieve from the intensity of it all.
What a perfectly illuminating discussion of the legal issues involved in the Carroll and Proud Boys Trials. I especially appreciate your showing how all of the trails of evidence are being woven into alogical sequence leading to the prosecution of 45 on conspiracy charges. I take some hope from this, and of course, the chickens and watermellon are icing on the cake.
Glad you're enjoying it. I'm a rules of evidence nerd, so I was concerned I'd gone a little overboard tonight!
It was very helpful. This kind of explanation is why I subscribe.
Not overboard @ all!!! I suspect many of your subscribers, like me, are hungry to know the next level of detail in the law beyond the short summaries in the general press. My background is math, so I love seeing the logical way these details hang together to bend the arc toward fair trials and justice. I've never seen the rules of evidence explained so clearly.
Wonderful article as usual. Your insight is so appreciated. Thank you.
Thank you! Having no background in law it is hard to see how some of the stuff going on in court is *fair*. So your explanations really give clarity.💚
Ditto!
Not at all overboard. I follow law, but court procedures and rule is a whole nuther aspect. There are things that I "sort of" grasped, but pretty fuzzy. I'm glad you are a rules of evidence nerd, because now I understand a whole lot more of this stuff than I did. Thank you!
No, thank you Ms. Vance for your elucidation. I'm the extremist who always fact-checks everything and then write nonsense like my comment above, but I did look up the rules of evidence you cited and the surrounding reasons for the rules' establishment and court precedent and went however it led me. So I am always grateful for information. But no offense, I always try to verify everything as best as I can. But you give me a lot of info, I've never felt you ever led me astray because I've always found you to be correct.
"There was no evidence of direct communication between Trump and the Proud Boys at trial, although their actions that day were animated by his public statements."
As far as I'm concerned, here's the evidence:
"Proud Boys, stand back and stand down." Donald J. Trump, 9/29/20
“See you all January 6th, it’s going to be wild” Donald J. Trump, 12/20/20
"Proud Boys, stand back and stand by."
Yes- what about those statements???
absolutely. and from Jan 6, after talking about showing the size of the crowd and thanking people for coming , he launches it, We will not let them silence your voices. We're not going to let it happen, I'm not going to let it happen." then the litany, and the nonsense of fraud before the "fight like hell".. Taken out of context? Well in context it starts off we are not going to let it (the electoral count) happen. Right up front, he tells the crowd we won't let the count happen and if anyone knows a way, that he hasn't already tried, telling the courts didn't come through, the states didn't come through, enough of congress won't come through, and Pence won't come through", so what way is left? Marching to the capital and fighting like hell to not let the electoral college be counted that he had started the speech by saying they, and he were not going to let it happen. No ambiguity when you put it in context. No ambiguity at all. Never was any. From the call to telling the proud boys to stand by.
Brandenburg says speech cannot be curbed unless it is to "incite imminent lawless action."
Not only did it incite imminent lawless action, lawless action was incited.
I have always thought congress should not have gone home in the early morning after, they should have immediately voted on immediate removal of Trump from office and sent the police to handcuff him and escort him to the city jail. Sometimes, (I think) justice has to act in an emergency and sort out the legal niceties later. We all know what happened in Uvalde when it didn't. While nothing of the caliber of killing kids in a school, there are no parallels here except that justice did not act quickly. But to do so when imminent threat is perceived is also vital. I think January 6th was an imminent threat and one in which the legal processes should have been suspended. There have been suspensions in the past, and they can be condemned afterwards when people are safe from terror.
I'm not talking of police using violence against singular individuals who are threatening no one besides possibly the police themselves(often not even that). But if the community's children are being shot, or the nation's capital is being attacked, then liberties of the individual become irrelevant. If Trump was out of office and behind bars on Jan 7 much of the later chaos that has occurred possibly wouldn't have happened. He could still have had his day in court where he would have been entitled to all of the safeguards of the judicial system. But he should have been locked up and jailed and prevented from instituting a second attempted insurrection. Even Hitler was arrested on the night he attacked the government and convicted swiftly. A sympathetic judge freed him. But all I have found from history is when such coups are not prosecuted quickly and the leaders segregated from their supporters, a second, victorious assault follows.
Wonderful article, Joyce. E. Jean Carroll is a brave woman. I try to imagine being in her shoes, and how scary it must be to give this testimony. First time in our history a former president is accused of rape and battery. Your detailed description of the legal process unfolding in this historic trial is also so helpful. It is riveting really. The Proud Boys information is also key to a deeper understanding of what happened on January 6. I await that trial’s outcome. Thank you, for your knowledge and humor. I love the photo of your conspiring chickens. They are beautiful....
She is brave.
Maybe accused, though I doubt it, but certainly to end up in a court as a result.
I’m looking at Jean Carroll pretty much the way I looked at Anita Hill. A strong whistleblower trying to get the right thing done. With the burden of proof down at the preponderance level, as opposed to all reasonable doubt level, I think she has a prayer. Trump’s defense, such as it publicly is…that somebody would’ve noticed if he was banging a woman in the dressing room… is a lame defense. I think it’s entirely credible, with the Bergdorf staff according their star customer celebrity Trump plenty of privacy as he stalked (er, shopped) the store. And when he went into the dressing room with her, I’m envisioning being on an airplane awkwardly looking the other way as a couple is clearly making a run for the mile high club in the bathroom. Hope Carroll gets more satisfaction than Anita Hill ever did in Joe Biden’s judiciary committee. I believe both women here. Never believed Thomas never believed Trump.
I promise she wouldn't have been the first woman to be handled like that by a man in a department store. To your point, sales people know to turn a blind eye to "celebrities" behaving poorly.
Erica, “behaving badly” and rape are very different. He did to E. Jean what he said you can do when you are like him: above the law, unfettered libido, fame, rich….no one saw him do anything, because he pushed her into a dressing room on an empty floor just before closing. He was the wolf waiting for the lamb. And please, don’t impugn the staff. I have worked in “sales” and we would NEVER ignore someone manhandling a client.
And you would have most likely been fired in 1996, with little to no recourse. I too worked in sales, and while I would have have said something, I had the luxury of doing it at a young age. Most working in retail sales do not.
Just an observation. The chickens come home to roost when conspiracy is charged because it enables the government to introduce the most damaging evidence of all, co-conspirator hearsay. Because the linchpin of many federal offenses is intent, nothing is more damning than a defendant's own words.
Thank you for distilling what is taking place in both trials, with such clarity. Neither the Washington Post nor the NYTimes gave the details you did of the Carroll trial.
On another note, I’m really appreciating your chicken photos. They are a beautiful lot. We are in Kasbach-Ohlenberg, a tiny village not far from Bonn, Germany. Around the corner are a yard of friendly chickens and a short walk away, even more, with the ability to purchase their beautiful, multi-colored eggs. It’s not only beautiful and scenic here, but deliciously quiet. Thank you for all you do, Joyce.
Thanks for your detailed explanation of the statues and their meanings in E.Jeans case. Prayers for her persistence in making sure sharing her truth finally made its way to the witness stand. She is one tough lady! 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼.
To the proud boys case, may KARMA have a field day👏👏👏.
The chickens are a welcome diversion from the chaos😎
Yes, every word. Bring on the chickens, Joyce. We need their love.
And can’t wait to see them roost!
So much is happening, thanks for keeping us updated!
I hope E Jean Carroll feels the support coming her way from all of us who realize the strength and bravery required to take on a corrupt, powerful, criminal abuser like trump. No matter what, she is already a winner and he is already a loser.
This was SO helpful! I don’t think I completely understood why what charges stick to the Proud Boys matters to Trump’s trial.
I’m also fascinated by the specificity of this law! I guess I’ve only heard people reference specific laws or summarize them, but I had never read an actual law as it is written. Excuse my ignorance, but I guess I thought all laws were sort of vague and up for interpretation, but that seems rock solid to me. I’m also amazed that someone was smart enough to sit around and write laws, to recognize the need for law and order. I assume the first laws were written in biblical times, but who writes laws now? I want a job doing this! This is my dream job to sit around imagining dangerous scenarios and every possible version of that same scenario taking curve ball turns and to write guardrails by which to prevent all of this from happening. I have anxiety and do this anyway for free (I’m a {failed😝} fiction writer, and a Comp Lecturer during the day). Why hadn’t I realized this before?--I didn’t realize you could study all this but duh, this is what you teach in law school?!?! I also bet this means many of your law students write fiction because this is the same path I take when writing. Huh. A bit over 40 and still learning everyday. The more you know!
Go to law school! Run for office! Write laws! Don’t let age stop you. I went to grad school for software engineering, nights, one course at a time, at 50. It changed my life.
Yes. I was 35 when I started law school, with a 5 month old baby. My class was filled with women my age and over, often spurred to law by their divorces. And older men, too. It is NEVER too late.
Carmen, do it! I went through college as a single mom, working and saving and taking courses. At one point I did work-study for the local public tv station, from studio to graphics. The public affairs director asked me if I'd like to do research for a documentary on waste and recycling. YOU BETCHA! My research revealed a much more complex picture than he envisioned, and it changed not only the documentary, but me. I knew that if I ever got the chance to go to grad school, I wanted to study environmental science and management. I did it!
I was 42 when I started grad school, and during my 2nd term I began working for the State of Washington's Dept of Ecology. Later for other agencies and non-profits. I loved what I did I'm 80 now, but if I could, I'd go to VT Law School and study environmental law and equity. I just became a Justice of the Peace in my town; not the same thing, but it'll do. In the meantime, I still go to the law to understand what it has to say on the various issues in my town and state. I've done that throughout my career, and no reason to stop now.
You clearly have the kind of mind that "gets" law: you just haven't had the exposure to it that I had. And yet your mind has grasped the intent and meaning of law without that training! There are various ways for people to study law, and in some states you can still become a lawyer by "reading law"- that is, working with a lawyer who oversees your studies. You could become a para-legal.
And if the legislative process is your thing, watch them and learn the process of making law. You could aim at becoming a legislative aide, or part of the legislative team (not all lawyers) who go over every submitted bill with a fine tooth comb to determine their potential impacts. In other words, imagining those dangerous scenarios and curve balls and creating guardrails to prevent them from unintended consequences. Legislators NEED people with minds like yours.
Go for it!
My cousin went to VT Law for their environmental concentration. He's now General Counsel for the Department of Housing and Community Development for the State of Vermont.
What a lovely and positive comment! Thank you!
I hope this doesn't sound bleak but with the population shrinking and a good thirty or so percent of our population being Trump-crazed lunatics, I've started to wonder if the responsible ones among us shouldn't begin preparing to fill in the necessary gaps that are sure to come. Mostly I'm thinking of the medical field. We need more doctors, so I've thought about going to med school even though I doubt I could get through the math requirements for that degree. (I'm word-oriented: BA and MA in lit, MFA in Creative Writing, fiction.) Just in case, it seems a portion of us should help safe-guard against this eventual hole.
I teach 18-21 year olds in their first college writing classes and have been (if I include grad school) for 21 years. I'm trying to ring this alarm: 20 years ago my classes were at least 3/4 wannabe doctors or k-12 teachers. I no longer get students who want to be doctors, and I now only have approximately two students per class who want to be a teacher. I don't know if the general public is not aware but even in as few as five years, well....yeah, I'm worried! Enrollment is tanking across the nation; this idea that college is only where rich yuppies go to be indoctrinated by socialists and that "real Americans" work with their hands and have jobs that involve getting dirty has taken hold in fat too many families.
*far
Thanks so much for helping us understand what is happening. Your expertise is invaluable and what a treat to have your Chickies mid week!
Hi Joyce. The chicks photo with the watermelon 🍉 is so cute. I never knew this about chicks or perhaps you redefine possibility in their world and ours. Thanks for updating us on the Proud Boys. And I have to say Ms. Carroll is very courageous. I wish her justice for us all 🇺🇸
A very brave, courageous woman serving as an example to us all. May we all use her example of courage to fight back - not only against physical violence - but against the GOP who are trying to control our health care decisions, our voting rights, veteran rights, LGBTQ, trans rights, and silencing not only our voices, but the voices we elect to speak for us on legislative floors. E Jean Carroll - is all of us and I'm so very proud to stand with her in this moment.
I so appreciate your explanations of the law being deployed, the rules of evidence for example, seems it was set up to be abundantly fair, keeping the focus on allowing the substantive in and keeping the extraneous out..Preserving the attention of the jury on the facts of the matter without distraction..
Loved the conspiracy exercise with the chickens, watermelon has taken on a new meaning..🐓🍉
I did see a rather unsettling analysis of some of the public facing goings on in the Carroll matter on the 4/26 YouTube airing of Legal AF, with attorneys Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo..While I am hoping Carroll prevails, it was explained quite thoughtfully that it is not a slam dunk.. 🤞
Thank you so much for the legal education and background I need in order to formulate a more than empirical line of thinking. Regarding E. Jean Carroll and The Proud Boys, I mull over the thought, "if only we could turn testosterone into a renewable energy source. If only ...".
“For those of you looking for a quick refresher on conspiracy law while we wait, there is this post from last July, where my chickens were accommodating enough to demonstrate the basic principles involved.“
It’s an excellent post worth reading, insightful, great analogy of how conspiracy law works as well as how it applies and/ or doesn’t apply. Using the chickens as the “actors” to show how it all works offers the readers (us) a little levity as well as a lighthearted look at, and explanation of, a very serious matter.
Everyone should read it, whether it’s your first time or your second time, to better understand conspiracy law as well as a get a bit of reprieve from the intensity of it all.
Thanks Joyce!