Thank you Joyce. Understanding the rules in this case is monumental to assessing Trump’s actions. The fact he does not believe any rule applies to himself and his infantile behavior when challenged makes me wish we could all witness the proceedings.
I am not sure how helpful it would be to watch/hear firsthand the pretrial proceedings; however, you can contact the Supreme Court directly to request Chief Justice Roberts to have the trial televised. Who knows, if enough of us contact him, just maybe we could get him to acquiesce. Someone had mentioned C-SPAN would be the proper medium to use.
Given what's at stake for an attorney if his defendant client misbehaves even just regarding rules of discovery, I'm intrigued that any attorney would willingly have Trump as a client. Perhaps it's a great career move in MAGA world, but it seems really risky otherwise.
Witness what we saw today? Trump lied multiple times and he certainly looked frightened as well as out of control, didn't he? My guess is that his lawyers didn't even know he was going on FOX today? They are probably holding their heads and cursing as he confessed to multiple violations of the PRA etc
I would like to hear what someone thought about Keith Olbermann's podcast today concerning the Washington Post revelations about what took so long to charge Trump for the insurrection. He emphatically wants Garland to resign immediately. I agree.
I understand and sympathize with the frustration. Turning over to a new AG (though presumably that wouldn't displace Jack Smith) might slow things down more. Unless you go with an already confined person as "acting" you'd then have confirmation hearings, etc.
John Durham was the Special Counsel appointed by Barr in 2019 to investigate Russian interference during 2016 election period. His Investigation continued after Barr resigned & while Garland was appointed the new US Atty Gen under a new POTUS.
So, since Jack Smith is working independently as Durham did, I believe he would continue to work his cases. If Garland resigned, Dep AG Lisa Monaco would prob move up to AG bcz why would Biden appoint someone else to replace Garland, if that was to happen?
Garland is a variation of the Peter Principle, which states that, "if you perform well in your job, you will likely be promoted to the next level of your organization's hierarchy. You will continue to rise up the ladder until you reach the point where you can no longer perform well."
It's mind-boggling that DOJ and FBI were afraid to investigate Trump and the insurrection ring-leaders. What else are they afraid to do?
What happens if Trump doesn’t comply by the order? What happens if any Defendant other than Trump would do that? Thanks Joyce! I’m referring more friends to your Substack newsletters so more of us will be in this together.
Thank you, Joyce, for these explanations. They are very helpful. I wish there was a way they could be required reading of all broadcast reporters. It’s crazy when something you’ve said so understandably is covered so differently. Talking to you NBC, CBS and ABC.
As a former court clerk, I'm annoyed that more journalists don't bother to learn what happens in court. Like calling an arraignment a "hearing." It's the initial court appearance where the indictment may be read (or the reading waived by the parties) and where a plea is entered and bail set. A "hearing" is for the purpose of getting the court to rule on something, such as whether certain evidence can be presented at trial. The proceeding where a trial jury is selected is called voir dire, and there are standard rules, as well as those set and agreed to between the parties.
What we're going to see is the ultimate rich famous white guy trial.
Thanks for that, Marycat. I'm a non-legal myself but have been learning SO much as I follow these investigations & cases. One thing is that there is a difference between a count and a charge (I did not know that!)
Plz correct me if I'm wrong, but as an example, if a person robbed 4 banks & had a gun during the robbery, the charge would be 4 counts of armed robbery (the crime). So, the count is the number of times you committed the crime. Is that correct?
I've noticed that some journalists and anchors confuse counts with charges, which will also confuse their readers/viewers when they don't get it right.
To answer your question, it's yes and no. Here's an example: In NY's penal law, often a defendant charged with murder will be charged under two subsections of the charge of Second Degree Murder. One count is for the act itself and the other is for Depraved Indifference to Human Life. One act of homicide carries two murder charges. But each state's criminal statutes are unique. Each count in an indictment can be either separate acts altogether, or multiple charges resulting from one act.
Hard to trust Judge Aileen Cannon. She tosses out the carrot just to have it slowly lured back to get attention. My antennae is up. For all we know, Fake 45 may have a photographic memory that we are unaware of. Definitely not a trustworthy male species. Here’s what I want: A front row seat to his trial. If Roberts denies that to us all, it’s war!
I had to laugh reading, "Makes the Defense Lawyers responsible for the conduct of their clients."
Oh my goodness! Are Donald's attorneys going to advertise for a baby sitter? How are his Attorneys going to stop Donald from lining his pockets with documents? How can they get them back? Would begging work? Sorry, I should not have gone there. I couldn't help it.
Why haven't we heard anything about Bedminster? How can Jack Smith be certain that there aren't boxes of presidential papers stashed there too? At least one witness has said that Trump flew to NJ with several boxes.
I read that somewhere as well. Maybe the FBI is not aware. Like Joyce said, they read the news, but not all the news. They rely on Americans. We the people! I still say that they did to check Mrs. Trump's grave and investigate her murder. I honestly believe she did not fall down her steps on her own.
They're aware. It was referenced in the. indictment. I have no idea why they haven't sought a warrant to search Bedminster. And a fairly recent grave there.
Link below is a good piece on the Bedminster angle. As mentioned, it was noted in the indictment but Jack may have different plans for how to proceed with that part.
I'll also say that we have to remember that just bcz we haven't heard about something doesn't mean it's not happening or hasn't happened. Jack's team is not 'leaky'. And, although we know TFG has a big mouth, the judge did issue a protective order for him to keep his big mouth shut, like no spilling of beans to the public, media, social media, etc. Who knows what the judge would do if TFG thumbs his nose at the order but Joyce did say that judges don't take kindly to that kind of misbehavior.
I agree. So many have been complaining about what they think he is not doing, but Jack Smith and his team are not "leaky." I'm just wondering what they have done or may be doing with regard to documents in Bedminster. We know at least one classified document was there.
It is true that the government must disclose its documentary and physical evidence before trial, but what the government does is send you a hard drive with two terabytes of data and tells you to go fish.
The government is not required to disclose to the defense the documents it will introduce at trial.
The government is not required to disclose to the defense the identities of its witnesses until trial.
The government is not required to disclose any FBI 302s or DEA 6s or other reports of investigation AT ALL.
The government is not required to disclose a statement made by a witness until the witness testifies, although typically the government will provide the statement the night before the witness takes the stand.
But the definition of what constitutes a statement is very narrow, so if a witness makes a statement to an FBI agent, which the agent puts in his report, but the witness does not read and affirm the report, the prosecutors may not disclose it.
Criminal records of witnesses--usually disclosed a week or two before trial.
Although the government is required to provide evidence favorable to the defense (Brady material), there is no rule mandating when and the Eleventh Circuit has upheld Brady disclosures made during trial!
The bottom line is that the rules of criminal procedure are a procedural sham. It is extremely difficult for defense counsel to conduct an effective investigation of the government's witnesses which is often the heart of the prosecution.
Compare this to open file discovery (and I am not talking about Florida where you get a witness list at arraignment and can take depositions). Where there is open file discovery, all the witnesses are disclosed to the defense way before trial and any statement made by the witness and every report of the investigating agents is provided to the defense so that counsel can conduct an effective investigation of the government's allegations.
Oh, I forgot. Rule 17. The defense has no power to subpoena evidence for its investigation.
The prosecutors, on the other hand, can use grand jury subpoena and discovery demands to get anything they want from anyone.
So prosecutors can spend 2,3,4 years investigating and putting their case together, aided by the power of the grand jury, while the defense may have six months to prepare for trial without any power to compel the production of any evidence. Seems fair to me.
And Brady. Joyce, tell your audience about the Second Circuit's record of compliance with the Justice Department's guidelines, Nejame for instance. Not to get too much into the weeds, but you may also want to explain how Brady is backward looking, so rarely does a prosecutors misjudgment result in a reversal.
Like you I am a former AUSA. But I have practiced criminal defense for 40 years, and I can tell you, based upon my limited experience, robust the government's discovery aint.
Brady refers to Brady v. Maryland, a United States Supreme Court decision which requires disclosure to the defense of exculpatory material in the hands of the prosecution.
Vivian, we think alike. I believe that whether by design or by happenstance, tfg will have several changes in legal representation over the next few months , delaying the trial past the 2024 election.
The court generally won't allow a change of attorneys on a case scheduled for trial. Note the word "generally." What happens with Trump is no doubt something completely different.
"It is extremely difficult for defense counsel to conduct an effective investigation of the government's witnesses which is often the heart of the prosecution. "
Often, but not always.
The witnesses are not the ones who have to answer to the charges, if I remember correctly being a witness is almost always voluntary; and more to the point again, the witnesses are not the object of the primary investigation. If a witness can be determined to be able to provide the defendant with exculpatory testimony then the prosecution is obligated to provide their testimony as discovery; other than that I see no reason for the witness to become a red herring for the defense to use advantageously prior to the prosecution making its case.
"Prosecutors can spend 2,3,4 years investigating and putting their case together, aided by the power of the grand jury, while the defense may have six months to prepare for trial without any power to compel the production of any evidence. "
Defense attorneys represent private interests.
Prosecutors represent public interests;
The moment private interests gain public powers public interests are for all purposes effectively nullified.
Individuals who commit crimes are oftentimes caught after years and even decades of being engaged in their illicit activities. If the prosecution has done their work in an accurate and correct manner and truly gathered together the necessary evidences, and witnesses, along with an accurate, clear, logical, and compelling narrative that explains intentions, motives, networks, objectives, persons, plans, purposes, schemes etc. that can all be validated as being non-coincidentally connected, especially when and if a defendant has been engaged in criminal or criminally suspect behaviors and activities for years or even decades, well yes it is not unreasonable for a judge to move a case along at speed. If a defendant is genuinely innocent then a good defense attorney should be able to assist his client in securing either the cooperation of the prosecutor's superior under whom he is an acting agent for the Attorney General of the state or the USA- a pathway to clearance of the matter or again if the defendants attorney is doing their job well and his client is cooperating then he should be able to either prove his client is innocent or at the very least create the reasonable doubt that is the standard of the law by which a jury of the client's peers must abide by wherein then they must render a not-guilty verdict based on their own perceptions of all the aforementioned factors.
Hi Joyce: I’m imagining the theatre of the absurd where 45 believes rules are made to be broken. How he plays this out with or without Judge Cannon’s help is anybody’s guess. Best of luck to Justice in the divine scheme of things that things will move quickly for all our sakes. Thanks for explaining how discovery should work here 🇺🇸
Thank you Joyce for what you do here (and elsewhere regarding teaching us about the law!). I feel like with every newsletter I open, I get to be in a law class with a superb professor. It brings back memories of my own graduate work so many years ago (though in a different profession). I always learn something new each time I read your newsletter.
As far as I know, Joyce is not a wizard who can accurately predict the future. We are being treated to, IMO, what life is like in the room where lawyers go to prepare a case.
Hopefully you’ll understand that I am not picking on Joyce but I am picking on the word “hopefully “ , and that if justice does not happen then “hopefully “ we will continue to have a country with laws that serve and protect everyone the same way. And, “hopefully “ you realize the other side wants chaos and is rooting for destruction of our institutions, because many of the other side are complicit in many corrupt practices.
Is it more important that trump be convicted or not elected? Given his success in the past of dragging things out (and in fairness, nearly any wealthy defendant’s ability to do that), the possibility of the Cannon being off the rails, the SCOTUS wild card, documents so classified, inconsistent, or at least unorthodox legal representation, isn’t it pretty likely that this is all going to drag on past the election? Can that not be made to benefit the country? DOJ policy of not BRINGING charges doesn’t keep them them from going forward during elections does it?
Sorry this is so disjointed. It is near stream of consciousness
I believe Cannon learned her lesson. I also believe both are important. Convicted and not elected. I know you didn't ask me, but I just had to put in my 2 cents worth.
what becomes of evidence received after discovery is well along, or through? Are courtroom surprises only for Hollywood? Is discovery meant to drive cases towards settlement before reaching a courtroom? Does discovery improve the quality of discourse in the courtroom? Does it make court cases more "fair"? Does it favor one party over another more often than not?
“The case the prosecutors brought in not particularly complicated, although the defendant is” :
brilliantly stated, Joyce!
Thank you Joyce. Understanding the rules in this case is monumental to assessing Trump’s actions. The fact he does not believe any rule applies to himself and his infantile behavior when challenged makes me wish we could all witness the proceedings.
I am not sure how helpful it would be to watch/hear firsthand the pretrial proceedings; however, you can contact the Supreme Court directly to request Chief Justice Roberts to have the trial televised. Who knows, if enough of us contact him, just maybe we could get him to acquiesce. Someone had mentioned C-SPAN would be the proper medium to use.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
Thanks for the link Lynell. For me personally, to watch would be helpful.
It would be Donald J.Trump's finest televised moment, and we know how he loves to be on camera. (Of course I am being sarcastic.)
His lawyers will do EVERYTHING possible to keep him from testifying, Everything!
They can call his buddy Putin to get the latest techniques to ‘nullify’ his desire to talk!
Giglio? That's part of a reference in the column?
Sent
Message sent. Thanks for the link
Thanks! I had no idea that is possible!
Done.
Thank you for the link. I've sent a message. Hope others will follow.
Done!
Given what's at stake for an attorney if his defendant client misbehaves even just regarding rules of discovery, I'm intrigued that any attorney would willingly have Trump as a client. Perhaps it's a great career move in MAGA world, but it seems really risky otherwise.
Witness what we saw today? Trump lied multiple times and he certainly looked frightened as well as out of control, didn't he? My guess is that his lawyers didn't even know he was going on FOX today? They are probably holding their heads and cursing as he confessed to multiple violations of the PRA etc
That was quite a performance, wasnt it? Loved Lawrence O’Donnell’s discussion with Weissman, Katyal and Moss.
Yes, O'Donnel's follow up was fun!
I would like to hear what someone thought about Keith Olbermann's podcast today concerning the Washington Post revelations about what took so long to charge Trump for the insurrection. He emphatically wants Garland to resign immediately. I agree.
I understand and sympathize with the frustration. Turning over to a new AG (though presumably that wouldn't displace Jack Smith) might slow things down more. Unless you go with an already confined person as "acting" you'd then have confirmation hearings, etc.
I beg to differ on one of your points.
John Durham was the Special Counsel appointed by Barr in 2019 to investigate Russian interference during 2016 election period. His Investigation continued after Barr resigned & while Garland was appointed the new US Atty Gen under a new POTUS.
So, since Jack Smith is working independently as Durham did, I believe he would continue to work his cases. If Garland resigned, Dep AG Lisa Monaco would prob move up to AG bcz why would Biden appoint someone else to replace Garland, if that was to happen?
Garland is a variation of the Peter Principle, which states that, "if you perform well in your job, you will likely be promoted to the next level of your organization's hierarchy. You will continue to rise up the ladder until you reach the point where you can no longer perform well."
It's mind-boggling that DOJ and FBI were afraid to investigate Trump and the insurrection ring-leaders. What else are they afraid to do?
What happens if Trump doesn’t comply by the order? What happens if any Defendant other than Trump would do that? Thanks Joyce! I’m referring more friends to your Substack newsletters so more of us will be in this together.
Judges have broad discretion over handling violation of protective orders. But they do not look upon it kindly.
Good questions. I wondered too.
Thank you, Joyce, for these explanations. They are very helpful. I wish there was a way they could be required reading of all broadcast reporters. It’s crazy when something you’ve said so understandably is covered so differently. Talking to you NBC, CBS and ABC.
As a former court clerk, I'm annoyed that more journalists don't bother to learn what happens in court. Like calling an arraignment a "hearing." It's the initial court appearance where the indictment may be read (or the reading waived by the parties) and where a plea is entered and bail set. A "hearing" is for the purpose of getting the court to rule on something, such as whether certain evidence can be presented at trial. The proceeding where a trial jury is selected is called voir dire, and there are standard rules, as well as those set and agreed to between the parties.
What we're going to see is the ultimate rich famous white guy trial.
Thanks for that, Marycat. I'm a non-legal myself but have been learning SO much as I follow these investigations & cases. One thing is that there is a difference between a count and a charge (I did not know that!)
Plz correct me if I'm wrong, but as an example, if a person robbed 4 banks & had a gun during the robbery, the charge would be 4 counts of armed robbery (the crime). So, the count is the number of times you committed the crime. Is that correct?
I've noticed that some journalists and anchors confuse counts with charges, which will also confuse their readers/viewers when they don't get it right.
To answer your question, it's yes and no. Here's an example: In NY's penal law, often a defendant charged with murder will be charged under two subsections of the charge of Second Degree Murder. One count is for the act itself and the other is for Depraved Indifference to Human Life. One act of homicide carries two murder charges. But each state's criminal statutes are unique. Each count in an indictment can be either separate acts altogether, or multiple charges resulting from one act.
Joyce, thank you for explaining why federal courts must adhere to local practices! As a non-lawyer, I needed today’s lesson.
You are such a gift! I swear I don't know what I'd do without you. Thank you so much for guiding and informing us!
Having read this, I feel fully apprised of what is "supposed" to happen. thanks.
Hard to trust Judge Aileen Cannon. She tosses out the carrot just to have it slowly lured back to get attention. My antennae is up. For all we know, Fake 45 may have a photographic memory that we are unaware of. Definitely not a trustworthy male species. Here’s what I want: A front row seat to his trial. If Roberts denies that to us all, it’s war!
Morning, Marlene! Will you continue to provide the SCOTUS website wherever you can? More of us need to call for a televised trial, IMO!
https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
Morning, Lynell! Here’s the link I used: https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
Looks like the same one you posted.
Maybe tRump has more than a photographic memory. Maybe he has photographs?
In at least one photo, there's a copier next to that pile of boxes.
Gross. Disgusting image considering what is in the boxes.
Don't the Russians have videos? 😈
And bedsheets...?
Agree, hard to trust Judge Aileen Cannon, so I am skeptical of this morning’s announcement of an August 14 trial date.
I had to laugh reading, "Makes the Defense Lawyers responsible for the conduct of their clients."
Oh my goodness! Are Donald's attorneys going to advertise for a baby sitter? How are his Attorneys going to stop Donald from lining his pockets with documents? How can they get them back? Would begging work? Sorry, I should not have gone there. I couldn't help it.
Why haven't we heard anything about Bedminster? How can Jack Smith be certain that there aren't boxes of presidential papers stashed there too? At least one witness has said that Trump flew to NJ with several boxes.
I read that somewhere as well. Maybe the FBI is not aware. Like Joyce said, they read the news, but not all the news. They rely on Americans. We the people! I still say that they did to check Mrs. Trump's grave and investigate her murder. I honestly believe she did not fall down her steps on her own.
There was no reason for anyone to kill off that old lady. Don't go into the dark.
The FBI is definitely "aware," more than the average news reader.
They're aware. It was referenced in the. indictment. I have no idea why they haven't sought a warrant to search Bedminster. And a fairly recent grave there.
Link below is a good piece on the Bedminster angle. As mentioned, it was noted in the indictment but Jack may have different plans for how to proceed with that part.
I'll also say that we have to remember that just bcz we haven't heard about something doesn't mean it's not happening or hasn't happened. Jack's team is not 'leaky'. And, although we know TFG has a big mouth, the judge did issue a protective order for him to keep his big mouth shut, like no spilling of beans to the public, media, social media, etc. Who knows what the judge would do if TFG thumbs his nose at the order but Joyce did say that judges don't take kindly to that kind of misbehavior.
https://www.rawstory.com/donald-trump-bedminster-2661313172/
I agree. So many have been complaining about what they think he is not doing, but Jack Smith and his team are not "leaky." I'm just wondering what they have done or may be doing with regard to documents in Bedminster. We know at least one classified document was there.
I will write the FBI and ask. I am bolder in my 74 years.
I will let you know if they answer me.
Fantastic. Thanks
Robust? What do you mean by robust?
It is true that the government must disclose its documentary and physical evidence before trial, but what the government does is send you a hard drive with two terabytes of data and tells you to go fish.
The government is not required to disclose to the defense the documents it will introduce at trial.
The government is not required to disclose to the defense the identities of its witnesses until trial.
The government is not required to disclose any FBI 302s or DEA 6s or other reports of investigation AT ALL.
The government is not required to disclose a statement made by a witness until the witness testifies, although typically the government will provide the statement the night before the witness takes the stand.
But the definition of what constitutes a statement is very narrow, so if a witness makes a statement to an FBI agent, which the agent puts in his report, but the witness does not read and affirm the report, the prosecutors may not disclose it.
Criminal records of witnesses--usually disclosed a week or two before trial.
Although the government is required to provide evidence favorable to the defense (Brady material), there is no rule mandating when and the Eleventh Circuit has upheld Brady disclosures made during trial!
The bottom line is that the rules of criminal procedure are a procedural sham. It is extremely difficult for defense counsel to conduct an effective investigation of the government's witnesses which is often the heart of the prosecution.
Compare this to open file discovery (and I am not talking about Florida where you get a witness list at arraignment and can take depositions). Where there is open file discovery, all the witnesses are disclosed to the defense way before trial and any statement made by the witness and every report of the investigating agents is provided to the defense so that counsel can conduct an effective investigation of the government's allegations.
Oh, I forgot. Rule 17. The defense has no power to subpoena evidence for its investigation.
The prosecutors, on the other hand, can use grand jury subpoena and discovery demands to get anything they want from anyone.
So prosecutors can spend 2,3,4 years investigating and putting their case together, aided by the power of the grand jury, while the defense may have six months to prepare for trial without any power to compel the production of any evidence. Seems fair to me.
And Brady. Joyce, tell your audience about the Second Circuit's record of compliance with the Justice Department's guidelines, Nejame for instance. Not to get too much into the weeds, but you may also want to explain how Brady is backward looking, so rarely does a prosecutors misjudgment result in a reversal.
Like you I am a former AUSA. But I have practiced criminal defense for 40 years, and I can tell you, based upon my limited experience, robust the government's discovery aint.
Jon, first, thank you for your comment. Can the attorneies get frustrated with trump and quit? Could he use that as another delay tactic?
As a non attorney what is Brady?
Brady refers to Brady v. Maryland, a United States Supreme Court decision which requires disclosure to the defense of exculpatory material in the hands of the prosecution.
Vivian, we think alike. I believe that whether by design or by happenstance, tfg will have several changes in legal representation over the next few months , delaying the trial past the 2024 election.
The court generally won't allow a change of attorneys on a case scheduled for trial. Note the word "generally." What happens with Trump is no doubt something completely different.
"It is extremely difficult for defense counsel to conduct an effective investigation of the government's witnesses which is often the heart of the prosecution. "
Often, but not always.
The witnesses are not the ones who have to answer to the charges, if I remember correctly being a witness is almost always voluntary; and more to the point again, the witnesses are not the object of the primary investigation. If a witness can be determined to be able to provide the defendant with exculpatory testimony then the prosecution is obligated to provide their testimony as discovery; other than that I see no reason for the witness to become a red herring for the defense to use advantageously prior to the prosecution making its case.
"Prosecutors can spend 2,3,4 years investigating and putting their case together, aided by the power of the grand jury, while the defense may have six months to prepare for trial without any power to compel the production of any evidence. "
Defense attorneys represent private interests.
Prosecutors represent public interests;
The moment private interests gain public powers public interests are for all purposes effectively nullified.
Individuals who commit crimes are oftentimes caught after years and even decades of being engaged in their illicit activities. If the prosecution has done their work in an accurate and correct manner and truly gathered together the necessary evidences, and witnesses, along with an accurate, clear, logical, and compelling narrative that explains intentions, motives, networks, objectives, persons, plans, purposes, schemes etc. that can all be validated as being non-coincidentally connected, especially when and if a defendant has been engaged in criminal or criminally suspect behaviors and activities for years or even decades, well yes it is not unreasonable for a judge to move a case along at speed. If a defendant is genuinely innocent then a good defense attorney should be able to assist his client in securing either the cooperation of the prosecutor's superior under whom he is an acting agent for the Attorney General of the state or the USA- a pathway to clearance of the matter or again if the defendants attorney is doing their job well and his client is cooperating then he should be able to either prove his client is innocent or at the very least create the reasonable doubt that is the standard of the law by which a jury of the client's peers must abide by wherein then they must render a not-guilty verdict based on their own perceptions of all the aforementioned factors.
Thanks for the update Joyce. It will indeed be interesting to see how quickly this case plays out! Prayers and peace to all☮️
Hi Joyce: I’m imagining the theatre of the absurd where 45 believes rules are made to be broken. How he plays this out with or without Judge Cannon’s help is anybody’s guess. Best of luck to Justice in the divine scheme of things that things will move quickly for all our sakes. Thanks for explaining how discovery should work here 🇺🇸
Thank you Joyce for what you do here (and elsewhere regarding teaching us about the law!). I feel like with every newsletter I open, I get to be in a law class with a superb professor. It brings back memories of my own graduate work so many years ago (though in a different profession). I always learn something new each time I read your newsletter.
PS It's always nice to meet another Joyce.
Sorry Joyce, but there are too many “hopefullys “ in this thread. I am getting tired of being hopeful. I just want justice to prevail.
As far as I know, Joyce is not a wizard who can accurately predict the future. We are being treated to, IMO, what life is like in the room where lawyers go to prepare a case.
Hopefully you’ll understand that I am not picking on Joyce but I am picking on the word “hopefully “ , and that if justice does not happen then “hopefully “ we will continue to have a country with laws that serve and protect everyone the same way. And, “hopefully “ you realize the other side wants chaos and is rooting for destruction of our institutions, because many of the other side are complicit in many corrupt practices.
Thanks for clarifying, AGD. I fear the only justice the other side will accept is 45's acquittal and getting back in the White House.
Is it more important that trump be convicted or not elected? Given his success in the past of dragging things out (and in fairness, nearly any wealthy defendant’s ability to do that), the possibility of the Cannon being off the rails, the SCOTUS wild card, documents so classified, inconsistent, or at least unorthodox legal representation, isn’t it pretty likely that this is all going to drag on past the election? Can that not be made to benefit the country? DOJ policy of not BRINGING charges doesn’t keep them them from going forward during elections does it?
Sorry this is so disjointed. It is near stream of consciousness
In my mind, Expat, we can have both a trial with a hopeful conviction and a defeat at the polls.
I believe Cannon learned her lesson. I also believe both are important. Convicted and not elected. I know you didn't ask me, but I just had to put in my 2 cents worth.
what becomes of evidence received after discovery is well along, or through? Are courtroom surprises only for Hollywood? Is discovery meant to drive cases towards settlement before reaching a courtroom? Does discovery improve the quality of discourse in the courtroom? Does it make court cases more "fair"? Does it favor one party over another more often than not?
As far as I know as a retired court stenographer, yes, courtroom surprises are only for Hollywood!