Maybe he just wants it to be over.
“Kill me now!” ?
I just … have to:
"I’m going to give you the best free legal advice you’re ever getting in your life,” [White House lawyer Eric] Herschmann said he told [Trump legal advisor John] Eastman. “Get a great [expletive deleted] criminal defense lawyer—you’re going to need it.”
Pure speculation on my part, but in addition to getting it all done and over with, Eastman will force DA Fani Willis to try her case twice, thereby providing Trump a preview of what to expect when he goes to trial.
No doubt Eastman expects to be amply rewarded with a pardon when Trump is restored to power.
Can this reasonably and realistically be refused, without looking like some sort of anti-MAGA bias?
Sure, courts refuse requests like this all the time.
The “disciplinary” commission is blocked for the moment.
The legislature seems to think it will be a quick fix.
I don’t believe this will have the slightest hitch in da willis’ step.
Why oppose it? Try him and jail him ASAP.
After all the alleged co-conspirators were arraigned, wasn’t there a period of time in which they could request speedy trials under Georgia law, and only Chesebro and Powell did? Seems like Eastman had his chance to request a speedy trial and passed it up. He can ask for it now, but I shall shed not a tear if he’s denied.
Eastman has now seen the plea deals that Chesebro and Powell were able to get. I wonder if his request now to move up his trial date is an effort to get to the front of the queue for the next deal. By the time the last defendants are up for trial, Willis will have all the testimony that she needs and Eastman will have nothing to offer her.
I get that, but from what I’ve seen upthread, the conduct of his trial could be used as intelligence info by Trump’s legal team. ISTM that the judge should just decide to do Trump first, and then do Eastman’s
Confused?
There should be no evidence that is a trial surprise to the defense. Nothing hidden to spring out during the trial.
Sure maybe there could be structures of arguments made to be tactically prepared for? But those should be games out ahead of time anyway and will vary by specific case details.
What intelligence is there to gain?
OTOH previous guilty verdicts on charged co-conspirators is of impact, no?
There is a major advantage to seeing and hearing witnesses testify in a previous hearing. There will presumably be advance disclosure of each witness’s “can say”, but that’s not the same as actually hearing that witness testify, and how they respond to cross-examination.
Those factors may give defence counsel ideas for their own lines of cross, and which witnesses they can consider calling in their case.
I suspect she’ll take plea deals from everybody except Trump and maybe Giuliani. With such a high profile and unprecedented case, there’s no such thing as too much corroborating testimony.
Also, there’s pleasure in turning T’s little imps against him. You know he doesn’t take disloyalty well. Not even from those he’s betrayed.
Makes sense.
Any impact of past co-conspirators guilty verdicts on subsequent cases?
I am guessing that in this sort of conspiracy case having others guilty as a matter of record establishing that the conspiracy existed is admissible and relevant?
That would be covered by their promise to testify, backed up by their videos that they gave to the DA prior to the DA accepting the plea deals.
That is for the plea deals. In terms of Eastman going first … does his guilty verdict if so found further establish the existence of the conspiracy as a matter of proven fact?
Fani Willis has indicated that she does not intend to offer plea deals to Trump, Giuliani, and Meadows.
Without knowing much about Georgia law, I would guess no. The second jury would probably not be informed of the results of the first trial. (However, given the high profile of this particular case, that might be impossible)
Yes, it’s part of the plea deals, but it’s the answer to your question. As @Procrustus said, the fact of a guilty plea normally can’t be entered in another case. But, if as a condition of the guilty plea, the individual undertakes to give full testimony at subsequent trials, and then does so, that testimony is admissible. The videotape is both to have a clear indication of what the person will testify to in the future, and prevents back-sliding by that individual when they are testifying.