The judge has decided that Trump is so untrustworthy and uncontrollable that he’s not going to order the prosecution to turn over their witness list. Doper trial lawyers, this is a big deal, isn’t it?
Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche asked the judge to instruct prosecutors to tell the defense team who the first three planned government witnesses will be.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said no. “Mr. Trump has been tweeting about the witnesses. We are not telling them who the witnesses are.”
It is a significant disadvantage for the defense team not to know which witnesses are coming, because it makes it much harder to prepare their cross-examination.
Crestfallen, Blanche offered to promise the court that Trump would not tweet about those pending witnesses.
“I don’t think you can make that representation,” New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan replied.
Blanche tried another tack, offering not to tell Trump who the witnesses would be.
Merchan again refused and said he wouldn’t force prosecutors to tell the defense the names.
I assume that Merchan, or any Judge in any of these trials, would need to understand what precedent existed that could be relied on to establish that Individual 1 was treated like any other Defendant.
IOW, we’re all sick of him apparently getting hugely beneficial favorable treatment in the face of what really must be called what it is – stochastic terrorism.
But he can’t get worse treatment either.
So the clerks – IMO – need to be digging up every precedent they can find to put a Judge on Rock Solid GroundTM before considering incarceration on a Gag Order violation.
And that includes the penalty ‘velocity --’ must a Judge fine $X for strike 1, then $3X for strike 2, and then go to a time out?
As to the stocks …
Mr. President? There’s an ‘Adena Friedman’ here to see you. She’s, apparently, the Chair and CEO of the NASDAQ. Something about your stocks. Please, come with me.
“They’ll never go for it. Then again, they might.”
Case law interpretation of the Constitution says right to a jury trial applies if a sentence of more than six months is authorized. In this case, more than six months is a bit unlikely, but possible.
If it was up to me, the judge should be able to order a bench trial when there is significant risk of jury tampering, as here. But that would require a constitutional amendment.
It means that they get their money from the state, and they’re theoretically subject to all of the same regulations as public schools, but nobody ever bothers to enforce them, because that would interfere with profits.
I was going to mention earlier that I think dropping the name of this site would get the majority of us booted. I was curious if I would have brought it up if I had been called. It would probably get me excused, but at the same time, I’m not sure I’d want MAGAs descending on the place.
Did the commentator say why incarceration would not be considered? I don’t understand what the repercussions would be for treating Trump like any other defendant. Merchan cannot lose control of his courtroom.
This judge can put a defendant who violates a court order in jail. I don’t see any reason to doubt that Merchan might do it, if attempts to admonish, or financially sanction, the defendant have failed.
As to why he decided to set a hearing to address the contempt, instead of just making a ruling. The law ensures that the defendant is entitled to due process, which in the case of most contempt hearings requires advance notice (an exception would be direct criminal contempt, which takes place in the courtroom; so, trying to attack the judge, or telling him to go fuck himself, can be punished right away).
So, Merchan is following the law by giving trump’s lawyers time to prepare for the hearing. He’s also going to have to give them a chance to provide a defense (what I’ve heard floated is the claim that the gag order was “ambiguous”, which is bullshit, of course).
But, once that has played out, he can craft a sanction. Now, I do not think that it will be incarceration, yet. But I do expect the judge to warn donald, in no uncertain terms, that being locked up for contempt of court is a genuine possibility.
This particular commentator didn’t say so while I was listening. I’ve heard at least two or three others on CNN saying the same thing in recent days. I’d like to dig into this a bit and see if I can turn up at least a stab at an explanation.
I believe Defense was asking for a courtesy of what order Prosecutor intended to call the witnesses. Who will be the first three I think was what Trump lawyer asked. Prosecutor said he usually extends that courtesy, but not this time. The defense knows who the witnesses are, just not the order in which they will be called to the stand. So Trump lawyer just wants to know who to prepare for, which is a pretty reasonable ask and prosecutor seems reasonable in saying no since Trump will likely do his thing on social media.
If I’m wrong about this, let me know. I believe we are all just getting tidbits of info from reporters. Mine are from the NYT who covered that “scene” much differently.
On another note, I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but both sides get there “no questions asked” strikes reset for the alternates so today might not go so fast.
This morning, he’s addressing one of CNN’s morning anchors, Kate Bolduan. His comment quoted below starts at about 8:15 into the video linked above:
So, Kate, that’s an example of one way where Donald Trump could actually suffer a meaningful consequence of violating the gag order, because prosecutors as we’ve been discussing, they now allege that Donald Trump in his social media post has violated the gag order ten times. And it looks like they’re right in most are all of those allegations.
The problem though, is one of enforcement and discipline. All that the law allows the judge to do is either, A, impose fines, but under the New York law that the DA cited, only a maximum of $1,000 per incident. That’s not going to matter to Donald Trump. And then the other option is to lock him up, which I think is very unrealistic. And I just don’t think is realistically in play here.
I just don’t understand why that’s not an option for the judge when dealing with an incorrigible defendant. What bad thing would happen? MAGA nation outrage?
Outrage that transforms into violence is the very reason for the gag order. I am no expert, of course, but it seems implausible to me that if a judge’s sanctions are ignored, he doesn’t escalate the consequences.
And then sometimes, would-be jurors reveal things that are just a bit weird. On Friday, one man said he cleans his local dog park twice daily, describing it as meditation.
I think that would be excellent practice for listening to Trump’s lawyer’s arguments!
Some people here have suggested there would be a secret service problem. There should not be, as many countries have jailed former national leaders without a disaster. But without considerable planning, there could be issues.
Legally, the SS has to protect Trump, but no method is specified. I think the method of investigating threats would work fine if Trump was locked up.
If I was the supervisor of a well-run jail (and I’m sure he wouldn’t be sent to a part of Rikers known to be bad), there’s no way I want federales telling me how to run my unit, let alone working in the jail, standing between my guards and an inmate.
But — Trump would claim he needs the SS at his side. He might even get SCOTUS to quickly agree, creating a mess Merchan will want to avoid.
P.S. A couple hours in a locked room in the courthouse would not raise these issues. Maybe that will be tried.
I am reminded of a third grader who, when I checked on his writing after 20 minutes, had only a blank page. “Why haven’t you started yet?” I demanded.
He shrugged. “My pencil was broken.”
Y’all. THIS IS A SOLVABLE PROBLEM. The idea that the wealthiest nation on earth, with the largest prison system in human history, can’t figure out how to deal with a single prisoner? Come on.