Not likely. He has an absolute 5th amendment right to stay off the stand in those cases (and his own if he wishes). No way he’ll agree to testify before his own trial. No upside, lots of downside.
Absolute ignorance asking: does taking the 5th keep you off the stand, or only allow you to not answer any specific question when on the stand?
I believe they have to ask the question before you refuse to answer it for that reason.
I’m not sure in theory. But in practice, he won’t have to get on the stand and take the fifth. I’ve never seen anyone have to do that in a criminal case. There are probably appellate decisions about it, but I can’t look right how.
ETA I looked it up. The general rule is what I said, but there are exceptions that could apply here:
In crafting a limited exception to the general rule in criminal cases that a witness may not be forced to invoke the Fifth Amendment before the jury, the court held in Gray that under certain circumstances a defendant in a criminal case may call a witness before the jury to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. 796 A.2d at 717. In explanation of its ruling, the court reasoned in Gray:
We believe that a trial court has some discretion to consider permitting a defendant in a criminal case to call a witness to the stand to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury if the trial court first determines whether sufficient evidence has been presented, believable by any trier of fact, of the possible guilt of the witness the defendant wants to cause to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege before the jury. *The court, in the exercise of that discretion, must consider, as well, the prejudice to the defense of not *694 *267 allowing the potentially exculpatory witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege in the presence of the jury. In opining that such discretion exists, we note that such testimony, if permitted, might be subject to the same restraints that a trial judge normally may exercise as to relevancy, repetitiveness, and the like.
Id. at 714 (emphasis added).
The rationale enunciated by the court in Gray for permitting a witness to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege in the jury’s presence was concern that prohibiting an in-court invocation would unfairly prejudice the defendant in the presentation of his defense. Id. at 716. In circumstances where the defense argues that the witness who seeks to invoke the Fifth Amendment is the singularly culpable person and the defendant fails to question the alleged culpable person about the crime in the jury’s presence, the court reasoned in Gray that the jury may wrongly infer that the defendant’s defense is frivolous or insincere. Id. at 714; see also U.S. v. Deutsch, 987 F.2d 878, 884 (2nd Cir.1993) (recognizing danger of unfair prejudice resulting from Fifth Amendment invocation injury’s presence “is not so great when the defense rather than the Government seeks to draw inferences from a witness’s silence ”) (emphasis supplied); U.S. v. Vandetti, 623 F.2d 1144, 1149 (6th Cir.1980) (identifying trial court’s concern in deciding whether to permit individual to take witness stand who refuses to testify as “prejudice which may result to a defendant from inferences which may be drawn if a witness takes the fifth amendment”) (emphasis supplied); U.S. v. Reyes, 362 F.3d 536, 541 (8th Cir.2004) (contrasting government’s use of privilege invocation against defendant to defendant’s use of inference from witness’ privilege invocation and observing that Constitution forbids adverse inferences in the former situation because such inferences burden defendant’s right not to incriminate himself).
Based on these considerations, the court felt compelled in Gray to establish an exception to the general rule against invoking the Fifth Amendment in the jury’s presence that would apply to cases where the defense is inextricably linked to convincing the jury that another person committed the crime for which the defendant is on trial. In such instances, the Maryland appellate court suggested the following procedures be applied:
When a defendant proffers a defense that the crime was committed by another person and the defendant wants to call as a witness that person only to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on the witness stand in the presence of the jury, the trial court, on the record, should make a determination of whether sufficient other evidence has been proffered that, if believed by any trier of fact, might link the accused witness to the commission of the crime. If the trial court finds that such sufficient evidence, linking the accused witness to the crime and believable by any trier of fact, exists that could possibly cause any trier of fact to infer that the witness might have committed the crime for which the defendant is being tried, then the trial court has the discretion to permit, and limit as normally may be appropriate, the defendant to question the witness, generally, about his involvement in the offense and have him invoke his Fifth Amendment right in the jury’s presence.
796 A.2d at 717; see also Simmons v. State, 392 Md. 279, 896 A.2d 1023, 1032 (2006) (discussing applicability of exception adopted in Gray ).
State v. Whitt, 220 W. Va. 685, 693–94, 649 S.E.2d 258, 266–67 (2007), holding modified by State v. Herbert, 234 W. Va. 576, 767 S.E.2d 471 (2014)
Very interesting. Thanks.
So putting it to language that I understand, any of the severed defendants can cause Trump to testify in person, knowing that he will take the 5th, if the presumption is that Trump is refusing to answer because he is guilty of the crime instead of the person on trial. But this might not apply in a RICO case in which the presumption is that the self-incrimination is that they are both guilty, correct?
Yeah, it’s not like Trump’s guilt will absolve the others. I think most likely the “general rule” will apply and Trump won’t have to take the fifth in front of the jury.
ETA: none of this is Georgia law, but presumably the same basic rules would apply. Like most things about this case the best we can do is say “we’ll know soon enough.”
Sorry, I missed this earlier.
Yes, that’s exactly how Foster’s—or any surety company—makes its money. Generally speaking, a surety company only accepts “safe” risks, on which it is sure it will never have to pay out, but for which it accepts the fees. Those fees, added up, create the surety company’s revenues.
I don’t know how a bail bondsman would assess who is a safe risk and who is not, but in the forms of surety that I am familiar with, surety underwriters are very good at understanding and interpreting the financial reports of prospective obligees. Between those, and other sources of info (e.g. Dun and Bradstreet reports and the industry’s grapevine, among others), the underwriter can make an informed decision as to whether this particular obligee is a good risk that it is happy to underwrite, or a bad risk that it does not want to underwrite.
The end result is that the surety collects fees (revenues), and rarely to never has to pay out. And if it does, then it can and will subrogate against obligees, meaning that ultimately, the surety company makes money by collecting fees.
@Procrustus & @Spoons Very good explanations! Damn-- some of these posts should come with CEU credits.
As for collecting from trumpy, I suggest a pound of flesh. He has plenty to spare.
Just sixteen more and he’ll be below 200. 
And if you believe that I can sell you this genuine good-as-gold trump IOU for only $20K.
As described by his detractors, Biden won the presidency by “campaigning in his basement.”
If anyone is interested, CNN is currently airing a special on the Georgia indictments.
It should help that although CNN et al gave him huge amounts of free publicity in his first campaign by covering every rally, they appear to be (somewhat) reluctant to repeat that blunder. But watching the extravagant coverage everyone gave his motorcades when he was reporting to court makes me wonder if they’ll revert back to their previous bad behaviors.
As to the unbelievably large number of “viewers” for the TC interview, I’d like to see how the numbers were compiled and where these viewers were from. Just like DDOS comes from coordinated attacks from multiple sources, might not his viewership come from an organized campaign of fake connections; I wouldn’t be surprised if some foreign governments were involved.
A twitter view, I still can’t call it X, is essentially worthless. Any time a user sees a video for 2 seconds, even if they don’t click on it, or have any volume, and if its just while scrolling the feed, it counts as a view. Meaningless numbers. I don’t think they track how many people purposely watch the actual video start to finish.
Xitter. X pronounced as in Xi.
Dog the Bounty Hunter vs the Secret Service. The Prize - Possession of Trump’s worthless ass. Coming Soon on Fox! Check local listings.
Arguments in fed court this morning, meadows has been on the stand for 30 minutes.
I just don’t see how this can go well for him.
it’s just more delay, and possibly a chance for him for an appeal down the road.
Query: can his evidence in this application, presumably talking at length about the vote quest, be used as evidence at trial?
It can be used by the prosecution. Meadows can’t use it offensively.