304
Rudy is strapped for cash (edition.cnn.com)
submitted 10 months ago by wolfpack86@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

If only he knew a competent lawyer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] gamer@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

he may ultimately get sanctioned with negative inferences (instruction to the jury that they should assume anything Guliani didn’t turn over was basically a smoking gun against him)

Is there precedent for this? It's not like he's refusing to turn over records, he's just unable to due to financial hardships (allegedly, he could be lying I guess). If it were anybody else, that would be an incredibly fucked up thing for the courts to do to somebody.

[-] NevermindNoMind@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Your right, it's usually when the defendant is engaging in bad faith, like purposely hiding documents. The case I remember, defendant intentionally refused to turn over a bad document and might even have destroyed it, but one of the law clerks at defendant's firm decided to be a whistleblower. I don't know if there's specific precedent for this if the grounds are just I'm to broke to conduct a search, but it's possible. It's usually a last resort, the judge will just keep issueing fines and attorneys fees for a few months. But at some point the case needs to move forward in the interst of justice, and the judge is going to have to figure out a way to do that if Guliani won't turn over the documents needed for the case. I doubt the "I'm too broke" excuse is going to hold up forever.

this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
304 points (95.8% liked)

politics

18075 readers
2996 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS