Co-defendants have interests that are adverse, so they have a built-in conflict of interest. That’s why there are conflict public defenders. Each defendant is entitled to mount a defense specific to their own best interests – including flipping and testifying against their co-defendant(s).
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
My follow up question is whether that’s a standard thing or something special cooked up for the guy that walked off with all this stuff once already.
Makes sense… But I’ve heard that Nauta’s legal bills are being paid by Trump? or at least by Trump-friendly funds?
Is that not a conflict by itself?
(Just reading that Nauta has an arraignment date set for June 27)
Asked and answered.
Dude, spelling flames are lame. There’s so much other stuff to call without having to resort to that sort of thing.
Sure, but the court won’t intervene in that. Defendants can waive any conflicts. Stupid, but allowed. A judge should closely question a defendant who has an obvious conflict to ascertain if they have been made fully aware of any potential conflicts and determine if they are still willing to waive them before accepting the dual representation.
Trump’s lawyers say it is likely he will take the stand:
Going for the mistrial, then, it would seem.
Too crazy to try for espionage, not crazy enough not to run the country. Jesus wept.
His testimony might serve to help prove a hoarding defenses. Though, from everything that I can find, it doesn’t seem to be a successful argument in previous cases.
OK, if he takes the stand and just makes a Donald Trump out of himself, how does this lead to a mistrial? IANAL.
Never mind, ninja’d.
“I think he’s a fantastic advocate for himself because nobody can say it better than himself what he did and didn’t do,” she said.
I find myself in agreement with Habba here. Let him take the stand!
Do not believe anything Alina Habba says. She is a serial liar who doesn’t appear to know the law. Remember, she’s the attorney who was looking forward to deposing witnesses in a criminal case.
To be more accurate,
Alina Habba, a spokesperson for Mr. Trump’s legal team who represents him in several civil matters, told The Washington Times that she has no problem if the former president wants to take the stand to defend himself in any criminal trial.
Habba may have a law degree, but she’s not really acting as a lawyer here in this capacity. More as a media manipulator.
The SEC should take a look into Habba and see if she has made any large purchases of contracts for pop corn futures.
IANAL, either. But I sat through a hell of a lot of trials.
There will be many rulings made about what witnesses can talk about and what they can’t. Those rulings will be made in advance of trial and the attorneys will be instructed to avoid questioning witnesses about areas that are ruled off limits.
I suspect this case will have lots of “off limits” testimony due to the classified nature of the subject documents. Witnesses who blurt out information in violation of these rulings can cause a mistrial if what they say is too prejudicial.
Got any thoughts on how likely it is that Trump will violate at least one of these prohibitions? On purpose, even? (Rhetorical questions; I won’t insult your intelligence.)
I would hope that the justice department in my proud country would have built in protections against a guilty defendant invoking his own mistrial. But my country has disappointed me before.
Well, it’s one reason I’d like to see a different judge running this case. A good judge can control an out-of-control witness. I have serious concerns whether this judge can or will do that.
Hopefully his actual trial lawyers won’t let him anywhere near the witness stand.
Amusing though it may be to consider, I don’t think he can be found non-competent. He is in much better shape than the people I’ve interviewed for formal psych assessment.