The jury pool will be drawn from Manhattan - but those types live in Manhattan, too. People who don’t live here get a very distorted view - there’s a housing project down the street from where my son bought into a limited equity coop* and across the street from him are studio apartments that go for a million dollars. All in one small neighborhood in Manhattan. Don’t get me wrong, it’s expensive to live in NYC but it doesn’t mean everyone even in Manhattan is wealthy.
* If he ever wants to sell ( and he won’t except to get a larger apt in the same co-op) he can only sell back to the co-op. Which is why the apartments go for around $150K for a one bedroom , not a million.
A lawyer is to take instructions from the client, not to override the client’s wishes. Doing so is professional misconduct.
That’s why going into trial, the lawyer needs to alert the client as to key procedural steps, and the overall strategy for the trial, and get instructions from the client that they approve the lawyer’s proposed approach.
If the client and the lawyer can’t agree on the approach to take, the lawyer needs to either accept the instructions, against their better professional judgment, or decline to act, depending on how serious the disagreement is. It’s always open to the lawyer to say, “I have given you my reasons for doing X. If you insist that I do Y, I need those instructions in writing.” There can be differences of opinion as to what is the best course to take, and ultimately it is up to the client to decide. (Assuming, of course, that Y is legal. If client is asking for something that is illegal, that’s a different kettle of fish.)
In this case, the trial judge has confirmed that it may not have been open to the defendant to have a jury trial. My inclination is to assume that the defendant’s lawyer checked into that point and decided that they could not get a jury trial, rather than assume incompetence, as the talking heads seem to be doing.
That doesn’t stop Trump from saying he wanted a jury trial, and leaving the inference hanging that “they” prevented it somehow.
When I did the math, I got about a 16% probability that there would at least two jurors out of six, given a probability of being a Trump voter = 12.2%…totals for each number & the sum provided:
Not that inconsistency is proof of anything, but if choosing a bench trial was a strategic decision, proceeding to say the judge solely in charge of your fate should be disbarred and that ‘some say’ should be criminally charged during the lunch break on the first day of the trial doesn’t seem to coincide with a strategic decision.
Trump accused Engoron of being “a Democrat operative” and “a disgrace to people that call themselves judges.”
“This is a judge that should be disbarred,” he added. “This is a judge that should be out of office. This is a judge that some people say could be charged criminally for what he’s doing. He’s interfering with an election, and it’s a disgrace.”
Trump’s recent history is replete with public accusations of misconduct against judges. It’s not generally an ideal strategy whether it’s a bench trial or not. Perhaps he thinks judges will step more carefully knowing that they’ll be under the microscope from the MAGA crowd. More likely, he just doesn’t listen to his lawyers.
This makes me wonder, if it were a jury trial, they might be sequestered and would not hear the rants of Trump about the judge or even themselves, right?
Well with regards to the Meidas Touch, which was the first video posted, it’s a channel founded by a law professor and produced by a prosecutor whose main contributors are Michael popok (trial attorney) and Karen friedman (chief assistant DA).
Also I disagree with @Johnny_Bravo 's characterization of it as “incredibly biased”. All of the legal channels I’ve seen have been very negative about trump’s chances in court, and the kind of threatening and baseless statements trump and others have made about the cases. The law is the law, it doesn’t have to pretend both sides have valid points.
The most recent video on their channel is titled (shouty caps not added by me but copied verbatim):
“Trump LOSES HIS MIND in WORST speech yet after FLEEING trial.”
Another from yesterday:
“Trump LOSES ALL CONTROL and gets CRUSHED in court.”
And that’s absolutely par for the course and well past calmly editorializing about his chances in court. The channel’s starting point is “let’s talk about how this idiot is gonna get got.”
Like I said above, they’re pretty good on the facts but that’s not mutually exclusive with also being incredibly biased. Which is fine since I’m also incredibly biased. It’s just not useful to pretend otherwise, either personally or in the media I consume.
I wouldn’t read that much into youtube titles. Otherwise we’d conclude that every day is the best and worst day ever, because some famous person has had the ultimate victory or smackdown, and it’s hilarious / appalling.
But, for the sake of not hijacking further, I’ll take the point back. I think Meidas probably is biased, in the formal sense of having a particular viewpoint / editorial stance. I just thought that “incredibly biased” alludes to the more colloquial sense of bias – that they are misrepresenting facts or deliberately not telling viewers things that run against an agenda – which is not what they do.
I initially thought the jury in Trump’s civil sexual assault trial may have been sequestered, but to the extent that expression was used it was only in relation to while they were on break in the courthouse, so not really sequestered in the sense being discussed here. Instead, they were allowed to be anonymous.
I thought based on some news reports, it only happened when the trial phase was over and they were deliberating? (And as mentioned, only for serious criminal trials?)
In their defense, they say they’re biased. I’m not a big fan of their click bait titles, and a lot of times you can watch the first half of their videos and get everything you need, but they provide solid reasons behind their opinions.