It may be that the prosecutor, looking for a dramatic moment when a witness can be asked: “Do you see the man who was waving around that document in this courtroom,” will object. But I think that would be a bad prosecutorial move because witnesses may speak more freely without such a powerful man as Donald Trump scowling at them.
In California, if the prosecution was to object to defendant trial presence waiver on grounds of identification, the defense can offer a stipulation that the defendant has been correctly identified. I know, he won’t face trial there, but I mention because it seems almost common sense that this should be allowed.
Do you genuinely believe there is an issue regarding identification in the federal case against Trump?
I worked in a public defenders’ office and in courtrooms for 20 years in California. I can’t recall a single case where a defendant was excused from personally appearing for every hearing or trial.
@PhillyGuy, your opinion on what is fair and how things ought to be, like all opinions, is fine. Where you jump the rails is when you assert judicial temperament generally permits this or express shock that a judge would actually follow the law.
It’s Federal law. Whether it’s a good law is a separate question, but Trump’s ass will be in court for the trial.
I understand the argument, on paper, how this all inconveniences Trump. But a trial, against the Deep State, before the election, is a gold mine of press. Trump will give a speech every night and everyone will cover it. All the light will be on him and all the talk will be about him. It will be bananas.
The only other best case scenario for him would be a trial in August 2023 as the Judge originally set it. Since he claims he did nothing wrong, he should be acquitted. If he was acquitted, he can claim he’s “innocent” and “wrongly prosecuted by the blah blah blah”, the biggest gold mine ever and it would be true('ish). The donor money would flood in and he could almost guarantee that he’d win the election. Instead, after seeing the evidence, he wanted to push an acquittal opportunity as far out as possible. And his base just can’t figure out why…
My link didn’t say it was common. It did suggest that defense attorneys should request it more often, such as when the defendant has certain tattoos.
In Trump cases, I think both the defense and prosecution have good reasons why the defendant should be excused (campaigning, and witness intimidation fear, respectively).
Are you missing how his behavior about this (and every other) case is akin to throwing a tantrum?
Are you missing how demanding that he be excused so he can campaign, when defendants are never excused so they can work other jobs, would be asking for special treatment?
Are you missing how the judge should treat him like other defendants, just as a parent should treat toddlers like other children, regardless of their tantrums?
If I was Trump’s attorney, I wouldn’t mention the election, or otherwise say I was asking for special treatment. I’d look for any favorable federal precedent on voluntary trial attendance waiver, and if I couldn’t find that, I’d cite state precedents where the law is somewhat similarly worded. Maybe I’d be told to go back to law school, and I suppose Trump’s type of attorneys hear that from time to time
Yes, and purposely, because fundamental fairness requires the justice system to make every attempt at treating similarly situated defendants, even difficult ones, equally.
Then he should await his court date in jail. He could share a cell with Jack Teixeira, who was charged with
(1) violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by retaining and transmitting national defense information without authorization and (2) unauthorized removal and retention of classified information.
and is being held in jail because
The prosecution advocated ongoing detention without bond, arguing that Teixeira posed a “serious flight risk”; the prosecution’s memo alleged Teixeira had attempted to obstruct the federal investigation by destroying evidence; might still possess secret information of “tremendous value to hostile nation states”; and had a record of making racist and violent comments
I should have specified equally well, not equally to those now mistreated.
I don’t fully know about what current secrets Teixeira may have memorized, but neither man likely has much of such. Jailing someone, who hasn’t been tried, should be a very last resort.
…we’re really talking past each other. The tantrum is because he’s being treated equally–in your prediction, being treated equally by being required to attend his own trial. If you think I’m saying the justice system should treat difficult defendants unequally, I can only ask you to reread what I wrote.
People are discussing these things as if Trump is a normal person. He is not. We can’t predict how he will behave when things start heating up. We do know that there is no “too far” or “too low” that he won’t go. He could disrupt the proceedings, daring the judge to jail him for contempt. He could refuse to be in the courtroom, holding rallies outside. We just don’t know. But we do know he won’t behave like a normal person, sitting quietly in the courtroom awaiting his fate. He does not give a shit about how the judicial system is supposed to work. As long as he is the Republican nominee, he can be a bull in a china shop because everyone else is very carefully following the law and considering how their moves affect democracy. That works in his favor because caring about democracy or the law doesn’t inform his decisions. He only cares about saving himself and he will burn down everything this country stands for to try to do that. Maybe he gets got in the end but the journey is going to be one of the ugliest things this country has ever seen.
And he will take every advantage of that in ways we can’t even imagine yet.
I’m certainly not. My point was, and is, that like all defendants in Federal trials, his presence is required. Whether or not he goes full baboon in the courtroom, I don’t know.
He can try. But believe it or not, most judges have dealt with defendants more batshit and obnoxious than Trump. They have ways of containing him. He will get more latitude due to his being a former president, but it won’t be limitless. I don’t think most of the federal judges are going to let him walk all over them.
The post upthread with the picture of the defendant holding his “Objection” sign isn’t far off the mark. Trump may spend the entire trial in a separate room where he can watch the proceedings on a monitor. He can text his concerns to his attorneys in the courtroom if he has them (and of course he will).
