That makes sense. That sounds like a typical jury instruction. And yes, not too high a bar. Juries can get hung up on things like this, so expect the prosecution to hammer the concept in closing arguments.
That is, however, correct. If he did not have thousands of loyal followers ready to do dangerously stupid shit, there would be no need for a gag order.
and yes, it is probably more than “thousands”, I just find the bigger number hard to put here
No but if the civil trial is anything to do go by it may result in the gag order being temporarily lifted
The number of followers “ready to do dangerously stupid shit” probably is more in the thousands, if it makes you feel any better.
Him and “Joey Taco” Tacovina.
Tacopina.
I never forget because I swear that should be the name of a pineapple taco.
I rarely eat tacos without pineapple… I like that.
No, see, they have to interview the sketch artist in order to enter the sketch into evidence.
To enable him to threaten witnesses and jurors? I would hope this would not be lifted.
That’s definitely what happened with the civil fraud trial, although Trump ultimately lost them all, the gag order was temporarily stayed each time be appealed it.
It’s possible the bar is higher for a criminal trial (given what can happen to jurors and witnesses in criminal trial)
Oh, I don’t think he’d really be willing to be cross-examined, no, he’s not that stupid. But I wouldn’t be surprised if he demanded to do the closing arguments.
It’s not relevancy, but even more restricted. My understanding (and I’m not a lawyer, but I’m fairly sure of this) is that cross-examination is limited to topics that came up in that witness’s testimony. So unless Trump brought up UFOs, the prosecution can’t ask him about them.
Tacopina shares with Todd Blanche the physical resemblance to an archetypal movie Mafia hitman, though their names don’t share the same appellative suggestion of a food.
A lot of concerns, but no apparent concern that the guy she was helping get elected was a pussy grabbing piece of shit!
Many foods are blanched.
Trump wanted to do part of the closing in his civil fraud trial. I don’t believe that will fly in this trial.
When Trump was saying that the gag order was preventing him from testifying, I thought his lawyer was nodding in agreement. He had to know that was untrue, so why nod?
I assume @wolfpup was being funny.
On re-cross that is true. But on the initial cross-exam each side can ask whatever they want. It should be related to the case (so probably no UFOs) but it need not be restricted to just the topics the other side brought up.
Not a lawyer but an expert winess for 20-plus years.Lots of cross and re-cross and the occasional re-re-cross.
I’d suggest that as a general rule attorneys try to avoid saying/indicating that their clients are full of shit and blatantly lying. What would be gained by expressing disapproval?