261
Defense moves for mistrial over Daniels' testimony
(abcnews.go.com)
I have a feeling he doesn't have the best lawyers representing him.
"I was surprised that there were not more objections," from the defense team he added. "At one point, the court ... objected, because there was no objection coming from the defense."
Either they are bad lawyers or they were strategically withholding their objections in order to file the mistrial motion. I fully expect this to be brought up again in an appeal, assuming Trump loses the case.
Convicted defendents in New York stay in prison during the appeal process. But of course we wont see that fucking happen because money reasons.
May it be too late for CheeseTurd by then.
Can they file for a miss trail on the grounds that they themselves didn't do the thing that's expected of them in the time it was expected for them to do it.
Surely a lawyer can't deliberately do a bad job, and then file for a mistrial.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Yes, but also in their defense they don't have the best client. It's like they deserve each other.
I've been following this trial very closely. Trump is the problem. He demands that his lawyers challenge everything very aggressively. He is enraged if his counsel accepts even trivial facts that make no difference either way. The bigger question is why they put up with his tantrums.
Money, probably...
He's not gonna pay. He'll say he lost so why pay. He's got almost 500 million on bond for business fraud, 5 million for rape of Ms. Carroll, I think I'm missing another big one, and he's freaking out at donors for not giving enough.
He's got no field offices set up and only really doing campaign rallies, if you don't count the desperate emails begging for donations. The only thing keeping his "campaign" going right now is the cult.
load more comments
(4 replies)
If he paid lawyers, he might get good ones.
"But Merchan says he was also surprised there were not more objections from the defense and that, at one point, he stepped in of his own accord to restrict Daniels’ testimony."
Blanche was actually a pretty respected prosecutor turned defense attorney, its surprising he took the case unless he wanted to get out of law and this was his swansong before transitioning to some sweet talkinghead gig or other well-paid right-wing political operative role
Blanche used to be a respected lawyer. I hope the payday was enough to pay for the reputational damage he's taking.
Yeah historically they like being paid and really aren’t jumping at the chance to do polarizing work for free
lol get fucked traitors
Good!
I was gonna say, that's hilarious but nah. I think that's what the judge thinks as well.
Legally speaking that's some bullshit.
Saving us clicks : many thanks :)
"I don't believe we are at the point where a mistrial is warranted," Merchan said.
Objection!
On what grounds?
It's devastating to my case!
"Your Honor! How can my client possibly get a fair trial after the jury has heard what he did? This bell can not be unrung!"
--Trump's Laywers, probably
| Trump’ lawyers actually
I'm not a lawyer, so interested in learning...
Isn't this what the purpose of objecting is? If the defense fails to object while it's happening... Isn't that kinda on them?
Yes. The judge pointed it out to them:
"I was surprised that there were not more objections" from the defense team, the judge added.
"At one point, the court ... objected, because there was no objection coming from the defense," he said
Because this was their plan all along.
Edit: request already rejected, but I’m sure they’ll mention it on appeal.
That's fine.
Convicts in New York start their sentence during the criminal appeal process.
Is the second quote saying that the judge stepped in because the defense was being so shit?
Yes
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you object and stop it you can't ask for a mistrial.
IANAL but if you don't object you still can't ask for a mistrial unless you argue that the defense given by the lawyers was literally incompetent, and I'm far from an expert but i think that's a pretty hard bar to reach. Especially if pre-trial they would put that lawyer on the stand and ask why they didn't object during the testimony but only complained after the testimony, and i can't imagine any valid argument that would be accepted by a court.
Bottom line, I'm not an expert at all, but if they purposely didn't object so that they could ask for a mistrial, I'm pretty sure that won't work at all
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Trump lawyer: I move for a bad court thingy.
Judge: You mean a mistrial?
Trump lawyer: Yeah. That's why you're the judge and I'm the law talking guy.
Judge: The lawyer.
Trump lawyer: Right.
"Your Honor, I move that I be disbarred for introducing this evidence against my own clients. "
Delay, delay, delay, delay, ...
load more comments
(1 replies)
Interesting. Harvey Weinstein's conviction in New York was thrown out over something like that. He is likely to be retried there though, and his California conviction still stands.
In Weinstein's case the prosecution brought in testimony from women who weren't part of the charges that were actually being tried, though, which is a pretty big difference from what happened here. Clifford is kind of central to this case.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
261 points (95.5% liked)
News
21671 readers
4071 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS