That would be classic. The prosecutor goes for cross, Individual-ONE asserts his 5A right, the prosecutor says he waived that right, he says no I didn’t and it descends into back-and-forth chaos, at which point the judge declares a mistrial and the whole thing has to start over.
I mean, I think the proper course in a situation like that would be for the judge to cite him for contempt, but this judge? That seems less likely than a mistrial ruling.
I’m all too well aware of this issue. I have acted for some deeply unpopular clients and lost friends because of it.
But throughout even the most difficult of such cases I’ve never considered for one moment that I was at any risk of an attack on my professional standing because I never did anything unethical in aid of my clients*.
My view in this case though is that Dershowitz is playing up the valid general principle that you mention, to cover the simple fact that the reason so many of Trump’s lawyers have suffered professional sanction is because they have acted unethically.
*[Interestingly, some of the most unethical behaviour I have ever seen from lawyers has been by those acting for popular causes who clearly felt that they were “on the side of the angels” and that consequently the end justified the means.]
Why? the lawyer’s personal opinion is not relevant.
Were there any cases during the 2020 election where Democratic lawyers sought to overturn the election of a Republican, alleging “fraud” on the courthouse steps, and then saying to the judge, “We’re not alleging fraud?”
Because that is the kind of behaviour that had brought the Kraken et al. before legal professional discipline bodies.
If there are such cases, and the 65 project is ignoring them, then Dershowitz has a point.
If there are no such cases, then it’s such a regression of the “stolen election” claims, this time to professional discipline proceedings.
What I’d love to see is for him to fire all his lawyers in a fit of pique and insist on mounting a pro se defense. There ain’t enough popcorn on Earth…
The thing about the cause of the 65 Project is that the issues in question do not involve defending a client. The lawyers “under attack” attempted to further a cause, not advocate for the accused. Trying to advance a cause (i.e., acting in the role of plaintiff) is an entirely optional position, from which a lawyer should have no difficulty resigning if they find the cause is or may be dubious.
If the lawyers in question acted unethically because they did not understand that they were advancing bullshit, then they either failed to do due diligence or were too highly motivated by avarice to care – people who probably have no business practicing law. If they were fully aware of the depth of the lies they were promoting, then they were lying to the bench and should be disbarred.
If the 65 Project truly does pose a real threat to lawyers who might defend Individual-ONE in court, that is just wrong and they should be held to account for it. But we would need a metric shit-ton more than the word of Dershowitz to go on.
It wasn’t a serious comment. It was made in the manner of someone who calls British soldiers “red coated terrorist invaders”.
The only thing Trump would mount is the flag in the courtroom.
With or without gold fringe?
Gold fringe? Kinky!
It’s not a real flag, and therefore not a real court with a real judge if there is no fringe. Didn’t they teach you this in school?
IIRC, Trump got a Florida lawyer that he paid $3 million upfront. The lawyer even quit his law firm, but he was quickly sidelined to second tier lawyer because he wouldn’t play Trump games.
I’d guess the guy is happy billing $1000 an hour for doing next to nothing.
ETA: Christopher M. Kise
“Trump is always looking for new lawyers willing to incinerate their reputations and law licenses, and this time he found young rube Jared Roberts. Roberts graduated law school in 2021, became a member of the Florida Bar in May 2022, and was next in line for the latest Trump attorney humiliation.”
https://www.meidastouch.com/news/trump-rookie-lawyer-roasted-by-judge-on-hillary-lawsuit-again