Let’s base it on the Weird Al Yankovic version of the song instead:
I was there to face the charges
In court in NYC
Against a DA who lies the largest
Directed by Joe Sleepy
I was tense, I was nervous
I know my team’s gonna fight
They’re questioning potential jurors,
But I don’t think they got the questions right-ight-ight,
Now, I’m in jeopardy, baby …
Best I could do quickly.
We – collectively – are killin’ it.
I don’t see how the pre-sentencing investigation could go so quickly. But, then, maybe I’m wrong.
The judge did issue this statement today, regarding next Wednesday’s contempt hearing, suggesting that Trump could be quickly jailed without all that:
Your failure to appear in court may result in your immediate arrest and imprisonment
While I don’t root for anyone to go to jail, I do hope this can be taken literally. Trump’s secret service detail should not be an excuse for special treatment.
Wasn’t that the cologne?
He could be put in custody pending sentencing. I don’t think he would be, but it is within the courts discretion
Seems it is a legitimate fear:
Full headline: Trump juror quits over fear of being outed after Fox News host says she should scare Trump
“This nurse scares me if I’m Trump,” Watters said
Perhaps the feds could figure something out if he dodges in ny.
I think it’s worth offering this here:
The federal and state governments can prosecute a defendant separately for the same conduct without violating the double jeopardy rule. Multiple states also can pursue separate prosecutions. Protection attaches only for prosecutions by the same sovereign. The dual sovereignty rule means that a defendant can face prosecution by both the state and the federal government, although often one will defer to the other. The federal government may have a right to prosecute a crime that did not cross state boundaries, occur on federal property, or violate a specific federal law, as long as it had some connection to interstate commerce or another area controlled by the federal government.
The prosecution has declined to give team trump a list of the first 3 witnesses. The judge has backed up team ny.
Prosecutors said they could not trust trump not to talk about the witnesses, team trump said “how ‘bout we promise he won’t “.
Judge did not buy “the promise”.
I heard it reported that when Trump’s lawyers promised that he wouldn’t tweet, the overflow room burst with laughter.
I didn’t pay attention to the OJ case, so maybe I am wrong, but I think this kind of journalistic jury tampering is unprecedented.
It is partly the fault of mainstream media. They never should have given juror-by-juror coverage of jury selection. At a minimum, the released information is enough to out the jurors to almost all of their acquaintances. That is wrong.
As far as the public should be have been concerned, the trial will begin next Monday.
Also, many years ago, Watters did an ambush interviews with one of my then-young sons at a demonstration, trying to make him look like an idiot. So I’m fine with Watters being jailed for jury tampering (although I know it is impractical and a bad precedent)
“Public charter school system” ? What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
Around here, charter schools are publicly funded, but they operate independently of the established school system, like the Montessori schools.
ETA: What @DavidNRockies said.
Far be it from me to defend Trump on anything, but:
a defendant in a criminal trial has the right to attend the trial and instruct his lawyer. But does he have an obligation to do so?
If Trump wishes to be absent for a day, why not let him do so? The trial can continue without him being there. If he voluntarily chooses to waive his right to attend the hearing and instruct his lawyer, that’s his choice.
Why not let him do it?
As a criminal defendant, Trump is required to attend proceedings each day of the trial unless he applies for and is granted a waiver
One source among many.
Apparently in NY you do have to be present for every day of your trial if you’re a defendant. Not sure how widespread that is or what the rationale is, but that’s how it is in NY.
You do in federal criminal court except under particular circumstances. Not sure about New York but it seems yes there too.
Federal rule:
Rule 43. Defendant’s Presence
(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:
(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
(3) sentencing. - SOURCE
ETA: Looks like yes in New York as well:
[“A defendant’s presence at trial is required not only by the
Confrontation and Due Process Clauses of the Federal and State Constitutions (see,
US Const 6th, 14th Amends; NY Const, art I, §6), but also by CPL 260.20”]; People
v Byrnes, 33 NY2d 343, 349 [1974] [“the right may be lost where the defendant
engages in misconduct so disruptive that the trial cannot properly proceed with him
in the courtroom”].) - SOURCE
Yes, a criminal defendant has an obligation to attend the trial.
1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial.
2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense.
3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.
N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 340.50
Edit: Well, there are a bunch of cites for you!
I wonder if the real reason that judges do not often waive trial attendance is because it opens grounds for appeal.
Suppose Trump doesn’t come back the next day. This could be due to serious illness, or something else outside his control (flight delay?), in which case the trial arguably should be delayed due his having a right to be there. If the defendant is in court, there cannot be a claim that the right to be present at one’s trial was denied.