Hell, might as well re-animate the corpse of Roy Cohn. He probably still is Trump’s favorite immoral lawyer.
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Your point is correct, except that it’s a good chance of a hung jury. Jury nullification requires all jurors decide “not guilty”. Trump got just over half the popular vote, so if political partisanship is not a criterion, it’s very unlikely that all the jurors will be biased in favor of the defendant.
I agree that the issue of the attorney-client privilege will be litigated before trial, and that it will be up to Cannon to rule whether the crime/fraud exception applies.
The other issue that I expect to be litigated before trial will be whether the fruits of the search warrant are admissible, based on whether it was a lawful search.
As @Aspenglow noted, the issue of the attorney/client privilege was already reviewed, and ruled upon, by another judge.
Similarly, the search warrant was approved by a federal magistrate.
The point being that both are clothed with a presumption of correctness, and the defense should expect a huge hill to climb.
Now, if Cannon goes rogue, we will be able to clearly tell, because she will have ruled against the considered decision of prior judges. It’s possible, but unless new information comes to light, she will be standing out on a ledge, one reviewable by the appellate court.
I can’t really think of other pretrial motions that might be raised (maybe one to exclude Melania from testifying on the basis of marital privilege?), except motions in Limine - filing these on the eve of trial is common ; they are requests addressed to specific evidentiary objections that the party is trying to preemptively resolve (e.g. a motion in Limine to address the admissibility of his pretend tweets).
So, I’m guessing at some point there will be a pretrial evidentiary hearing (meaning testimony will be taken) on the pretrial issues, followed by a lengthy written order from the judge that comes several weeks later. That will be the big hubub before the trial, sometime next summer.
Would they delay arraignment for the average Joe (or Reality Winner)? Wouldn’t that be the time for “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be assigned to you?”
Yes, because it’s not a delay of going to court. It’s just a delay of entering your not guilty plea.
He’ll get a return date in about 2 weeks, I’m guessing. That would be typical.
Will they be able to delay that long? I thought these Federal trials were nominally supposed to occur with 75 days?
I guess it depends on your definition. From here
In what can be said to be a milder form of jury nullification, some of the jurors, or even just one in most cases, can hang the jury by maintaining a Not Guilty verdict even though they believe the defendant broke the law.
I think that most organizations that promote nullification understand that its unlikely they will be able to convince every single juror in a case to violate their oath.
The clock is paused once motions are filed.
This indictment is by a Florida grand jury. There’s another one in DC still investigating. Whether they’re looking at related crimes or just 1/6, we’ll find out eventually.
Thanks to you and Aspenglow for clarifying.
So, let me know if this is correct. The evidence issues will be decided pre-trial.
Are those rulings are appealable by either side prior to trial? Or do they have to wait to appeal until after trial?
Did you mean “just under half”?
Cannon or no Cannon, jurors will be excused unless they unambiguously say that can keep an open mind. However, I’m pretty sure the prosecution can’t exclude Republicans (matter of Florida public record if you have the name and date of birth) without using up one of their six preemptory challenges (the defense seems to have ten). I doubt it would be worth using one just for that. As for asking the jurors who they voted for, this next link says that a normal judge won’t let you do it:
http://www.trialmethods.com/uncategorized/trump-supporters-jury-box/
My link above also says that even if the judge allowed asking if you voted for the defendant, it wouldn’t much help without then asking the juror why they voted for Trump, and that second question would definitely be ruled out.
The E. Jean Carroll voir dire questions can be found here:
Are you a Truth Social user? That was asked. Did you donate to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or Donald Trump? That was asked. But who you voted for, no.
I knew that guy was smarter than me!
Most issues, but not all. Obviously, objections happen during a trial. But much of the structure of the trial - what the government has as evidence and who the parties intend to call as witnesses - is known before trial.
If the government loses, they can file an appeal after the ruling (called an interlocutory appeal). If donald loses (doesn’t he always?), he can file an appeal if he loses at trial.
No, but my context was unclear. I meant:
Trump got just over half the popular vote [in the Florida jury pool].
All of which will take months and months to resolve, by which time Trump is re-elected and he pardons himself and all of this evaporates.
Cannon’s shenanigans don’t have to be legitimate. They just have to eat up the clock.
As I think it through, a magistrate judge may decide the pretrial motions (with the ability for each party to object to the magistrate’s recommendation and have it reviewed by the judge).
Can you ask if the prospective juror has ever posted–positively, negatively, or neutrally–on any social media regarding Donald Trump?
Followup would be which social media, and whether positively or negatively.
Presumably both sides would then scour social media for confirmation and possible perjury.
Unfortunately, in Federal Court there is no “you” to ask questions. The Judge performs voir dire and decides what to ask (usually asking for suggestions from the parties.) Some federal judges allow the attorneys to ask some questions, but some do not allow any attorney voir dire.
But yes, that’s a legitimate question if the attorneys do get a chance to question perspective jurors.
Thank you.
This just seems inevitable to me based on her prior pro-Trump rulings in this matter, she’s got a lifetime appointment, and the fact that this appears to be Defendants best defense that could plausibly work (at the very least to delay this awhile). I’m ignorant on this, but I don’t know how usual it is to have a key witness be the attorney of the accused discussing the stuff he is charged with. I’m guessing rare. With that said, it also appears to be a solid factual basis for the privilege exception.
The question is how many bad evidentiary rulings will it take for the Gov’t decides it’s case is not so airtight anymore and they need to appeal prior to a trial, and how does that play out.