I assume that when doing so he will not be under oath?
Ergo @Apenglow is on the money
He’s going to redefine jurispudence as being nowt but a brand marketing exercise, if allowed.
Trump warns of ‘bedlam,’ declines to rule out violence after court hearing
Speaking to reporters after an appeals court hearing in which Trump’s lawyers said he should be immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election, Trump claimed without evidence that he was being prosecuted because of polls showing him leading President Biden. He warned that if the charges succeed in damaging his candidacy, the result would be “bedlam.”
“I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes,” Trump said. “It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.”
I’m not falling for that threat. Please proceed with the process under the law.
Not that it applies here, but out of interest - I assume that the right to represent yourself must mean that you could have a legal team representing you and be part of that team yourself? So in theory you could have other lawyers on your team do everything else and then just give the closing arguments yourself.
I posted about the wrong trial. So I’m deleting the comment.
A party always has the right to proceed In Pro Per, short for In Propria Persona and meaning “In their own person.” Judges do everything they can to discourage defendants from doing this and they make it clear to the defendant that they will be held to the exact same standard as any lawyer trying their case. They will also often appoint a public defender to act as the defendant’s “co-counsel.” (Attorneys hate being appointed to do this.)
So in theory, you’re correct, a defendant could do it as you describe. But they are constrained to make their closing argument in accordance with the actual evidence presented, so just making a campaign speech isn’t going to fly.
The above applies to both civil and criminal cases, but there are still a lot of reasons for Judge Engoron to deny Trump’s efforts to make his own closing argument. The main one is he did not formally choose to proceed In Pro Per. He is ably represented by paid counsel. They are who should properly present closing arguments.
Judge Engoron may indulge Trump a little bit because this is a court trial and there is no jury to prejudice with Trump’s stupid rhetoric. But again, it would be far outside the norm to permit what Trump wants, so the judge is just as likely to deny Trump’s request.
We’ll know soon.
Hope this answers your question.
Oh, I think I’ve heard of that! That’s the thing where if it lasts for more than four hours you’re supposed to call the doctor, right?
I hope there’s a doctor on standby because if Trump actually does take the stand, he is going to blather for as long as humanly possible so he can remind us that Tish James is a racist and this is all political interference and the judge’s clerk is controlling him with her whispering and Trump’s loans were perfect and there were no victims and the only fraud is the one the court is doing to him right now and all that other stuff he has said about a thousand times by now. He just needs to say it one more time. Just one… more… time… We just need that last bit of convincing. If we can only hear him say it again, it will become true and his innocence will shine like a celestial beacon. But not a beacon from Christian heaven. Rather a beacon from gold-plated Trump heaven, where everything is perfect and Trump can do no wrong. You’ll see. We’ll all see on Thursday. That is unless of course Trump does his usual chickenshit victim routine and starts whining about how “they” wouldn’t let him declare his innocence.
I presume part of the requirement for stringent adherence to protocol is that an out-of-bounds closing doesn’t improperly influence or skew the jury’s perceptions of the preceding trial. If the lawyer goes off the reservation, the judge either has to interrupt, or spend time re-instructing the jury about what they can consider and what they should disregard.
But if this is a bench trial, Engoron is perfectly capable of sitting there and wholly ignoring anything Trump says that’s immaterial or invalid. Seems like there’s a plausible scenario where he lets Trump blather as a way of defanging his intent, and then just strikes most or all of it from his mental record.
….followed by a sharply worded rejoinder.
I’ve repeatedly heard election deniers complain about corrupt and/or incompetent judges that refused to look at evidence. Anytime Trump can reinforce that is a win for him.
It’s a little difficult to look at evidence that has not been presented.
What evidence do you think is missing? What can Donald Trump testify to that his lawyers haven’t already presented?
I think the point is that the same people who outside the courtroom announced that they had a vast amount of evidence of election fraud by Democrats subsequently – when in court and subject to penalties for making false statements – admitted they had no evidence to present. So the judges can’t have “refused to look at the evidence” because they were never given any.
I once saw a TV Drama where this tactic was tried. The idea was that the Jury should hear from the defendant without being subject to cross-examination. It backfired. The judge ruled that the defendant had testified, thus should be sworn in and cross examined.
If TV hasn’t lied to me, it would be a very bad idea for Trump to deliver the closing arguments. It could totally wreck any defense he has. So I’m totally in favour of it.
This guy gets it.
mr weissmann stated just that last night. if trump does speak and starts “testifying”, he either gets cut off or sworn in.
here is an article, remember that the defence decided not to call trump back to the stand during the trial.
I just took it that you thought there was still something to present - I understood @Gyrate point.
Judge Engoron has ruled that Trump will not be allowed to speak in closing arguments.
< chortle >
Unstated by the judge: “Shut the F*!K UP Donny! You’re out of your element!”
Are you implying that when the inevitable movie about this is made, Judge Engoron should be played by John Goodman? Could we get the Coen brothers to direct?
I know that it has been decided that he can’t speak but it should be noted that there isn’t a jury in this trial. Him blathering in front of the judge wouldn’t have the same effect.