The Rs? Innocent of everything except being the Second Coming of the Lord hisself.
There is nothing He could do, nothing, including simply ceding the USA to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin’s Russia that would be less than Divinely Inspired Patriotism to Make Amerika Great.
I personally read the “witch hunt / politically motivated” rants as carrying an implicit “he is absolutely factually innocent,” but maybe that’s just me.
Nope. Not factually innocent.
Fundamentally incapable of being anything other than divinely innocent. It’s not a matter of simply being not guilty. It’s a matter of guilt being simply impossible. Someone that Heroic cannot be other than Perfect.
Thank you. That’s kind of you to say. We have many excellent lawyers on this board and I will always defer to their greater knowledge on these matters. But courtroom and trial procedure, that was my job and it’s what I can share. I’m glad my sharing it is helpful to you. If I get things wrong, I know our resident attorneys will set me straight!
Every lawyer I watched had their own slightly different approach to jury selection. But yes, for the most part, they want people who are even-keeled and not warriors. They’re looking for people who will consider all sides of an issue before pronouncing judgment. The less invested someone is in a position, the better.
Want to get out of jury duty? Just mutter the words, “jury nullification,” in response to a question.
The majority of cases I saw reversed on appeal were due to juror misconduct, I’m sad to say. Sometimes they didn’t even realize they had engaged in misconduct.
I think you may well be wrong here. I think what you read is that since there are dozens of charges, Trump may face more serious consequences IF found guilty (eg. not just a fine or house arrest). I think you’re reading stuff into comments that is simply not there.
Trumpal Infallibility.
On a side note, I like your icon. Clever customization of the default.
More like artistically incompetent customization of the default, but thank you for the kind thoughts.
I was aiming for something akin to the look of the St Louis Cardinals S, T, & L overlaid. See here. But I quickly found that was much too hard for the likes of me. So I settled for what you see and the rest is history; sordid history, but history nonetheless.
I like yours too; A nice juxtaposition. Although I’m reminded of an imfamous co-worker who got in trouble for announcing their imminent arrival to
Newark: home of the New York Mets, the New York Jets, the New York Mets, and 8 million other losers.
After the customers were Not Amused the Big Boss was even less Amused. Shit doth flow downhill, as sayeth the Parable.
Not to derail the thread, but my understanding was that this strategy is SO effective that if you trot it out you could get slapped with a Contempt of Court charge?
I think exactly the opposite. I think Republicans believe, deep down, that Trump is guilty of making the payoff to Stormy Daniels, doing it from campaign funds, and all the rest. Their only choice is to change the subject, “witch hunt!”, “politically motivated!”, “unfair!”; anything except Trump’s guilt or innocence.
That doesn’t necessarily apply to posters on Facebook or Reddit. But if anyone hears a well-known Republican try to say that Trump is factually innocent, post about it here.
For decades I’ve made my living proofreading transcripts for court reporters, mostly pretrial depositions.
Been called for jury duty a few times, under the Massachusetts one day/one trial system. Closest I ever came to being on a jury was a case where I listened to the judge recite the name of the case, the attorneys (I thought “Hey, I know how to spell that odd name”), the parties, the likely witnesses, and ask if anyone knew any of them.
i raised my hand, got called to the stand, and told the judge and the lawyers huddled around me, “I believe I proofread some of the depositions in this case. I don’t recall them right now, but I suspect as the evidence comes in, I’ll remember it.”
The lawyers looked at each other, looked at the judge; they all thanked me and sent me on my way back to the juror-collecting room to wait out the rest of the day. I heard later from another prospective juror who wasn’t chosen that the judge told the venire it was likely to be a three-week trial.
The point of this anecdote for this thread? That even in a run-of-the-mill civil litigation, the court and counsel don’t want jurors whose prior knowledge of the litigants and case materials may taint the evidence that will be presented during the trial or influence a juror’s assessment of it because of preconceived bias toward or against any witness. In my proofreading for federal district court reporters I’ve read several transcripts of jury selection, and can confirm that all involved take jury selection very seriously and carefully.
That’s dependent on jurisdiction. Here in Canada, simply going to law school, whether you get a degree or not, immediately disqualifies you from ever serving on a jury.
So, I’ll never need to worry about it. I just tick the “I am a lawyer” box under the “I do not qualify to be a juror because” heading, return it to the provincial authorities, and subsequently hear no more about it.
There was one time that I was called for jury duty and they got their fill of jurors before they got to me. It was a criminal trial and there was a lawyer on the jury. He specialized in trusts or something. The judge made a comment that lawyers on juries can be a problem because they can tend to be kind of authoritative during deliberations. Coincidentally, a co-worker with whom I was very friendly was in the pool and empaneled. After the trial was over, she told me that’s exactly what he did.
I’m quite sure that somewhere, there is some judge that would take it to this extreme. I never saw it, though. We just excused them with as little fanfare as possible.
And a fine anecdote it is, too, because they really do.
We might start a whole thread on jury selection approaches/juror stories so as not to derail this one. Where shall we start it? I love these stories!
You are literally the person in charge but I say MPSIMS
I think that’s perfect.
There’s that, but there is also the situation where lawyers know the law, while ordinary people don’t. But ordinary people can decide facts without trying to apply law to them.
All a jury does is decide the facts, and nothing else. Then the judge interprets the facts in accordance with the law. The problem with having lawyers in the jury is that a lawyer on the jury will often try to apply the law to the facts before the judge gets the chance to do so. Thus your “kind of authorative” comment; a lawyer in the jury will want to apply law to the facts, thus acting as a de facto judge before the verdict gets to the actual judge.
It’s the “if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail” situation. Lawyers know the law, and their natural instinct is to apply the law to every fact. I should know; IAAL; and while I cannot speak for all lawyers, I cannot stop at the facts. I have to go further into the law that obtains from those facts.
That’s why lawyers cannot serve on juries in Canada. We have too much legal education, and we’re too willing to use it where we shouldn’t. Like on juries.
An article about Trump’s current legal team. It’s Politico if that matters. Interesting that they want to add someone who knows election law.
Isn’t this backward? At least in American courts, after the close of evidence the judge will charge the jury on the points of law they are to apply to the facts as they find them, and the jury’s verdict is the end of the case – well, there are post-trial motions, of course, for judgment NOV* (notwithstanding the verdict), notice of appeal, and so forth. But it’s judge=law, then jury=facts leading to verdict according to instructions of how to apply those facts.
I like the history of Trump’s lawyers:
Tacopina is one of the few Trump world lawyers who have also taken on clients charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — though not always with favorable results. He and his partner Chad Siegel represented Julian Khater, who was sentenced to 80 months in prison earlier this year for macing three police officers"
He also represented Kimberly Guilfoyle and tried to get her to skip out of testifying before the Jan 6 committee. But that did not work out too well"
Her premature departure resulted in the committee issuing a subpoena for Guilfoyle’s testimony that ultimately compelled her return for a lengthy interview about her involvement in planning and fundraising for Trump’s Jan. 6 rally.
But he did get a rapper off of a gun charge, so he’s got that going for him…
And sometimes, from what I gather, prosecutors will just hand a stack of papers to the defendant, and ask them to sign for all of these “routine procedures”, including waiving the right to a speedy trial.
Why waste one of your no-strings-attached dismissals on that guy? I think it’d be pretty easy to establish why you’re dismissing him.
When I was in grad school, no one in the physics department, about fifty faculty and the same number of grad students, had ever actually served on a jury. Clearly there’s someone out there who doesn’t want us on a case.
