Point of curiosity: can a plea deal originate on the defense side? Or is it always from the prosecution side, and the defense can accept/deny/negotiate?
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
Sure. The defense could propose a deal. And they can try to negotiate from the Government’s offer. There is usually some back and forth, but in my experience the Government is holding most of the cards and doesn’t change their position in any significant way.
Thanks, that’s what I would have guessed.
I’m going to assume that the prosecution and judge will be familiar with the Classified Information Procedures Act - Wikipedia, which protects the unnecessary disclosure of classified information, while ensuring that the defendant gets a fair trial. (for criminal trial only)
Prosecution. Absolutely. The newest lawyers on the trial team are I believe from National Security Division in DC.
Defense = No one, yet.
Judge = Absolutely not. But most Judges aren’t familiar. It’ll be interesting to see where she takes her cues from - the Gov’t, or the Defense. A good defense attorney well-versed in CIPA procedure can properly grind this down and drag it out; a bad attorney can too.
IMO, it’s highly doubtful that, if convicted, Trump will see any prison time or even something like house arrest for this case.
But, it is possible that he could be barred from holding any future public office, and he could be banned from social media. Should this happen, his influence will quickly wane and he will eventually fade from the public consciousness.
That might be the best we can hope for.
Based on the current charges, the opposite is more likely: prison time (though could be reduced to house arrest or the like), but no barring from public office.
I just thought of something, in one of the Mar-a-lard-o pictures, there were a bunch of file boxes in the same room with what looks like a Multi-Function Printer (MFP).
Most MFP’s actually have internal storage that stores a digital copy of anything scanned/copied. If any copies were made with that device, there would be a digital record. That would be a pretty good smoking gun!
I wonder if they took the MFP as well? I guess it could also be a plain old photocopier, not sure if they have internal storage.
MtM
The prosecution can open the plea negotiations, especially if they’re worried they can’t be sure of getting a guilty verdict, so they’ll offer a plea of a reduced charge.
I have participated in cases where no offer was made at all by the prosecution, including one death penalty case. There’s nothing that compels either side to offer or ask for a plea agreement. If a case is high profile and the evidence is super strong, prosecutors prefer a very public trial. Reputations are made or ruined based on such decisions. It’s a high wire act when prosecutors go this route – no recourse if they get a squirrel jury.
As pointed out by @EddyTeddyFreddy, you’ll often see plea offers where the evidence isn’t as strong.
You’ll also see them when both sides assess the value of a case and realize they are unlikely to garner a better outcome by going to trial, just wasting everyone’s time and money. After years of handling cases, experienced lawyers on both sides have a pretty good idea how a case will shake out in trial.
Our criminal justice system would grind to a halt without plea agreements and cost taxpayers far more than it currently does. I’d estimate about 85% of cases are adjudicated by plea.
I’m curious to see if Trump takes any offer made in this case.
Settlement rather than trial is often the outcome in civil cases, too, and for the same pragmatic reasons.
Indeed. I worked the civil side of our courts as well as criminal. Frankly, I found civil work far more fascinating. And fewer nightmares, too.
Knowing Trump, that’s just the room where they put the complicated technology they can’t figure out how to make work.
We discussed this briefly in another thread, starting at this post.
There is now a protective order for non-classified discovery (last week there was the agreed by Gov’t/Defense Motion with attached proposed order filed). The magistrate Judge (as it should be) has made it official, but I can’t find the actual Court Order to see if anything is changed from what was proposed. Here is a Reuters article that quotes the Order (US judge orders Trump lawyers not to release evidence in documents probe | Reuters):
“The Discovery materials, along with any information derived therefrom, shall not be disclosed to the public or the news media, or disseminated on any news or social media platform, without prior notice to and consent of the United States or approval of the Court,” the order filed on Monday said.
It also specified that Trump “shall not retain copies” and that he may only review case materials “under the direct supervision of Defense Counsel or a member of Defense Counsel’s staff.”
So they can now start releasing some* discovery evidence to the Defense. Like a normal criminal trial. Protective Orders are not uncommon.
*If this tracks the proposed order, which it will, then “Discovery Materials” means that this is only pertaining to non-classified discovery. Not the classified documents he is accused of retaining. That Order will come later.
Yup, I don’t want to be unified with them. I want them to be defeated and defanged.
Considering how strong the case and how high-profile, I’d be surprised if the prosecution makes any offer at all. Maybe an offer to the co-defendant, but not to Trump.
No, they need him there to show the contrast between Nauta and Trump at sentencing. Cannon can’t give Trump a nothingburger light sentence because he’s a former President without giving Nauta a more serious sentence since he’s just a former valet, which will strike onlookers as absurd since Nauta will be convicted on much lesser and many fewer charges than Trump.
This?
I think Smith wants to treat Trump normally in every way except to avoid, as much as is practical, interfering with the campaign. And offering a plea deal is a federal norm. So Trump will get an offer.
As for whether Trump takes the deal, no, because it goes against his election strategy of playing the victim.