He doesn’t have it in him to respect anyone, but I think trump LOVES how all this waffling is keeping him in the headlines. And I think he also loves being the target and focal point of everything. The Center of His Own Universe and the rest of us are trapped there.
I read all of that as “my plea for donations of $24 to $3,300” is paying off handsomely."
Gulling the rubes. Soak. Fleece. Repeat.
Who would’ve guessed he was lying?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/manhattan-da-accuses-house-republicans-interference-trump-probe-2023-03-23/
On Monday, three Republican committee chairmen in the U.S. House of Representatives from went on the offensive against District Attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat, accusing him of abusing prosecutorial authority.
and they were told to pound sand.
“The letter’s requests are an unlawful incursion into New York’s sovereignty,” said the letter signed by the district attorney’s general counsel, Leslie Dubeck. “Congress cannot have any legitimate legislative task relating to the oversight of local prosecutors enforcing state law.”
When I hovered over the link to see the URL, I read ‘trump charges petition donations’ and assumed they meant he was charging (ie credit card fee) his donors to give him money. I clicked on the link to read more about it, I didn’t even consider that it might not be the case. It certainly seemed probably enough.
“In two weeks” would be the ultimate irony.
Like a wild animal backed into a corner.
District Attorney Bragg is a danger to our Country, and should be removed immediately, along with Radical Lunatic Bombthrower Jack Smith, who is harassing and intimidating innocent people at levels not seen before, “Get Trump” Letitia James, the worst Attorney General in the United States, and Atlanta D.A. Fani Willis, who is trying to make PERFECT phone calls into a plot to destroy America, but reigns over the most violent Crime Scene in America, and does nothing about it!
Which is a very big deal, of course.
A very tough burden for a prospective pro-Trump juror hoping to sneak onto the jury and mess with the verdict is the question “Under penalty of perjury, will we find any posts on your social media for the past seven years that are strongly in favor of or opposed to Donald Trump or his candidacy for President?”
I certainly would be disqualified, as I should be.
radical lunatic bombthrower! wow! someone hit a nerve or two; or possibly a lawyer or two.
I’ve been wondering about voir dire. If after the jury is empaneled and the trial is over. What if a juror clearly admitted to the rest of the jurors that they had lied during voir dire.
Mis-trial? Or could they bring in an alternate to replace them and continue.
What might the punishment be? Contempt of court?
And here I thought the NYC DA was soft on crime.
If there are still alternates available, they could be substituted in.
Jurisdictions treat alternate jurors differently. Some are released when deliberations begin and others are held on standby in case they’re needed later. I have no idea how New York does it. In Washington, we used to be able to talk with the released alternates during deliberation, which is maddening, because one juror before deliberations doesn’t give you any useful information. They are not kept on standby and are off limits.
The crime would be perjury, I think, since the jurors are put under oath before voir dire begins.
IANAL, but this is my understanding.
If the jury has been empaneled and they are still hearing the case, they can replace the compromised juror with an alternate.
If the lying juror isn’t discovered until after the verdict is issued and the defendant was acquitted, I don’t think they can vacate the verdict and try to get a new trial. But they can charge the juror with perjury and contempt of court.
I think that would be double jeopardy. I believe the defense could request a new trial if the action of the lying juror resulted in a conviction.
What I don’t know is what happens if it becomes obvious that a juror lied after during deliberations after the trial concludes. I’m not sure if they can replace with an alternate at that point. It wouldn’t be a good look.
I do disagree with what seems to be a minor consensus that it would difficult to empanel a jury without a Trump supporter that was intent on acquittal from the beginning.
Someone attempted a statistical analysis upthread, but I’m not sure that analysis took into account the large percentage of adults that don’t vote, which would include non-citizen residents that aren’t eligible to vote. I’ve been on NYC juries, and I think it would be easily possible to empanel a jury without a fervent Trump supporter. Even if there may be a few jurors that voted for Trump, the court does a good job on encouraging impartiality and the peer pressure in the jury room can be strong.
I think they can get a conviction if the case is good. Juries have a good track record in recent politically charged cases. Trump cronies have been convicted pretty consistently, while the Democrats that Barr and Durham attempted to prosecute to “even the score*” were all acquitted, IIRC.
*This refers to the prosecution of Greg Craig for FARA violations. Geoff Berman, the Trump appointed lead of the NY Southern District wrote about this in his book. He didn’t see a case and declined to prosecute, he was explicitly told by Trump’s DOJ that they had to prosecute a Democrat to “even the score”, and Barr took the prosecution to another district. Craig was acquitted by a jury.
It might be interesting to note that many courts expect the parties to discover lies during voir dire, if the information is available on line.
The most significant issue raised by plaintiff, however, is whether defendant waived its current allegations of juror dishonesty by not raising them during voir dire or the trial. Plaintiff contends that defendant made no efforts to investigate jurors until after the verdict. Meanwhile, plaintiff did raise a juror issue during trial, which allowed the Court to investigate the matter by holding a hearing with both counsel and the juror present. The Court agrees because all the information about Juror Nos. 2 and 9 submitted by defendant was found in public documents, primarily by internet searches. Consistent with McDonough, Johnson, and Stanczak, the Court finds that defendant waived its present objections because the basis of the objections might have been known or discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence. Defendant gambled with the possibility of a verdict and now raises questions it might have raised earlier.
Burden v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. 08-CV-04-DRH, 2011 WL 3793664, (S.D. Ill. Aug. 24, 2011),
Thanks Procrustus. You probably know what I’m thinking. That a juror would say that they knew the accused was innocent/guilty before hearing any evidence, and nothing would ever change their mind. This, I think, is going to be a problem (whether we find out about it or not).
And thank you Ann.
He’d be totally unscathed by the Total Perspective Vortex.
My understanding is that if a juror must be dismissed during deliberations, an alternate is slotted into place and the jury begins its deliberations a second time from the start.
yep, one trial i was on came close to this. they should have dismissed her. she deadlocked the verdict.
“What kind of person,” Trump wrote of Bragg, “can charge another person, in this case a former president of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting president in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is known by all that NO crime has been committed, & also that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our country?”
“This disgraceful attack is not a dog whistle but a bullhorn of incendiary racist and antisemitic bile, spewed out for the sole purpose of intimidating and sabotaging a lawful, legitimate, fact-based investigation,” they said. “These ugly, hateful attacks on our judicial system must be universally condemned.”
What are the chances that, if something truly unfortunate does occur, they immediately come for Trump on the grounds that he was fomenting violence?