Huh. They did the chamber thing in the newer buildings. The old ones had a small room off the courtroom, chambers were elsewhere.
Yeah - I’ve never encountered/heard of a “robing room” in the several state and federal courtrooms I’ve been familiar with. They might exist, but I never noticed one.
Sounds like the NY courthouse is set up with the judge’s chambers on a different floor from the courtroom. And I have no idea how they assign/share courtrooms.
I’ve decided that Steinglass, et al, avoided any mention of a predicate crime whatsoever (is that right?) until the closing for an absolutely brilliant reason.
We all know there was no need to charge a predicate crime in order to be convicted of Felony Falsification of Business Records. In fact, The People of the State of New York v. Jason Holley tells us that a Defendant could be acquitted of the predicate crime and still be found guilty of the Felony Falsification charge.
Naming the specific predicate charge, IMHO, was a very risky move. It may have had the jury trying to figure out guilt/innocence of the predicate crime in a way that not only didn’t matter, legally, but was also a whole lot messier than maintaining focus on the business records.
The idea of naming the predicate crime at the end seemed almost perfunctory, but elegant in its simplicity.
It’s something that has driven the MAGAs bonkers from pretty much day one of these charges and this trial. Steinglass simultaneously shut them down (a positive side effect) and left the jury with the answer to what could have been a nagging question: what crime was he intending to commit or cover up??
[Has everybody else already figured this out, and I’m just late to the party?? ;-)]
ETA: the “Access Hollywood” tape was really just robing room talk. Ahem.
The problem with that notion is that you are talking about 12 laptops that could be on 12 different pages. The more sensible approach would be to have a 55inch monitor on the wall and a keyboard and mouse on the conference table, with a dedicated computer that is unconnected to anything but the buzzer in the courtroom. One SD card would contain all the evidence (except for physical objects) and transcripts from the trial for the jury to review. My point here is that you do not want the jury to be on 12 different pages at the same time, you want a unified discussion.
"I can’t find a decent lawyer! They’re all corrupt and inept. Just look a look at Cohen! Ten years he worked for me then testifies against me! What kind of good lawyer does that. Then there’s ‘Horseface’ Habba. Filed a case against the New York Times, the world’s most corrupt, newspaper and my ungrateful niece and couldn’t bring it home! And then cost me $83-million when that Carol girl got all upset. Witch ought to pay me 83-million for paying attention to her.
I tell ya, I just don’t have any luck in finding a good lawyer. Except that – what’s her name? – Cannon down in Florida. She’s doing what I pay her for."
They consider the entire US judicial system to be illegitimate, so a guilty verdict will be accepted right after they accept the result of the 2016 election. Personally, I’d like him found guilty here whether he is or not. There’s too great a chance he’ll walk on everything else. Nobody should ever give this asshole the benefit of the doubt. EVER.
So, immediately?
No, because despite the typo, Trump still insists he should gave gotten even more votes in 2016.
Yes, he even supposedly opened an investigation into how he lost the popular vote, he insisted it was due to illegal migrants voting and other such nonsense.
That investigation of course found nothing and was soon forgotten.
And today he faces a probable felony conviction related to election interference in that same election.
2020 dumbass 
If we worked on the assumption that these witnesses’ identities were unknown to the defendant and they weren’t disclosed during discovery, and, if the government knew these witnesses could provide exculpatory testimony, would that violate the Brady rule?
I have no idea. I don’t think there were any witnesses, except perhaps ones that Trump had made up during today’s proceedings. He’s never mentioned any witnesses before.
He was sounding kind of unhinged in today’s Daily Rant. Well, he always does, but a little more than usual. Like I said before, I think reality is starting to sink in and he’s scared.
This is an important input:
Trump Business Records Jury Instructions
The instructions do not actually mention election interference.
Yes, because the jury could reach a verdict at any moment, so the accused must be in the courtroom with his lawyers, and the prosecution counsel, and the judge. (That’s especially important if the accused habitually has a large motorcade of 5 SUVS; can’t make the jury wait while his security teams get him back to the court house from Barad-dûr his tower.)
Waiting for a jury verdict is one of the tensest things going. I remember going to the court once with a couple of others just to keep company with the Crown prosecutor who was waiting for a decision. We played Trivial Pursuit in the barristers’ robing room / lounge. Crown was wearing her court robes. At one point, defence counsel wandered in to check on her, he was wearing his robes as well. They both had to be ready to be in court on a moment’s notice.
Jury gave its decision around 9 pm.
That’s what it made me think of, too. The chef’s kiss of that sketch is the nonchalantness with which they talk about “banging their gavels”.
Robing rooms a bit fancier due to wigs, eh?
naw, we don’t have wigs. (And British judges don’t use gavels. I think the Pythons put that line in for the American tour.)
Crazy, huh? Just like the way “collusion” isn’t a specific crime.
Thanks for that. I’m nowhere near finished reading it (it really is 55 pages, just like the news said), but I like the way it’s in plain language, easily understandable to the layperson. I’d expect that, and I’m glad to see it.
Thanks again!
I wrote before that the jury instructions do not mention “election interference.” Literally, that’s true. But looking at it again, this part of the instructions effectively has the same meaning: