Georgia goes into day 2. After 3 hours on the stand, meadows get cross examination by prosecutors tomorrow.
Wonder how many hours that will be.
Nitpick …Insuring fair and honest elections sounds like something Lloyds of London would do.
But even if ensuring fair and honest elections IS a legitimate function of the executive branch, there are limits to what Trump and Meadows could do in pursuit of that goal.
For example, ensuring that the Secret Service is providing effective protection is probably a legitimate function of the executive branch, but that doesn’t mean that Trump could put out a hit on Mike Pence in order to test the VP security detail.
Of course, the details of the GA phone call put the lie to that argument, unless you really believe that the key to ensuring a fair and honest elections is to find the exact number of votes Trump needed to win.
Correction! 5 hours on the stand today. That is quite the day for Mr meadows.
Sept. 6th is the arraignment for the defendants. Trump first at 9:30, then each in turn every 15 minutes.
He gets to go first. That will make him soooo happy.
To all the lawyerly types on board: does a defendant have to be present at an arraignment? The internet says yes, but there are exceptions.
Yes, he has to be there. (I’m no expert in Georgia law, but I’d be shocked if it’s any different) Sometimes a defendant has been ordered to be at two places at once, and one hearing gets moved. While the date can change due to extraordinary circumstances, they will not hold the arraignment without the defendant in the courtroom (although during the recent pandemic, some arraignments took place over zoom). I would guess his attendance could possible be waived at other more routine hearings, but being present at arraignment and trial are critical
For what it’s worth, in Florida the appearance can be waived when a written not guilty plea is entered by the defendant’s counsel.
Yes, that was one of the exceptions I found via Google-fu, but the site also stated that the court had to agree to this waiver.
No, it’s allowed by the rules.
But I don’t see a similar provision in Georgia law.
(And I do expect that Florida is an outlier. I used to practice in Colorado, where defendants were expected to be at all court hearings).
This is all I could find regarding Georgia Superior Court rules on a defendant asking not to personally appear:
I don’t see why a judge would decline a Trump request to be excused from any and all trial phases. All they should care about is that he go to prison on the appointed day, if convicted. However, I gather from past threads that judges may not think like I do.
On what grounds?
A lawyer I know was once on a civil trial with multiple defendants. Since it was civil, the defendants didn’t have to attend, but could do so, of course.
One of the defendants only appeared at certain times during the trial, which was quite lengthy. He would come on some days, but not every day, and didn’t always stay the full day.
When the verdict came out, guess who got hammered by the jury? The guy who didn’t come to court very often.
My lawyer friend told me he got a very strong vibe from the jury: “Who is this arrogant SOB who can’t be bothered to come to court, like most of the defendants?”
Just one incident, and in a different country, but something to consider. I’m sure the jury consultants that Trump has retained (with a promise to pay in 2 weeks) will give him much more detailed advice. But human nature is universal…
To which Trump will undoubtedly pay heed. Oh, who am I kidding? Bwahahahahahahahaha splurt
On what grounds should it be denied?
One I can think of — it is normally in the defendant’s interest to attend the trial because he or she can assist in their defense. For example, the defendant might get a good idea for cross-examination and pass a relevant note to their lawyer. I don’t think that applies here.
Sounds like a good example for an essay on why all trials should be bench trials.
Before I was on a jury, I tended to think juries were like this. But when I was on a jury, I think we actually focused on the evidence, and not on any such irrelevant nonsense. Maybe I just got lucky with the jury I was on.
I can see the judge advising Trump that trial attendance is to his benefit.
Is it? I can see Trump’s behavior getting quite bizarre in court, like some of the Jan 6 defendants who had to be put in a room so their mic could get cut when they wouldn’t shut up.
IANAL so I do not know why defendants are required to be present. Maybe it is a stupid requirement. Dunno. But that’s not really the question. Given that it is for other defendants on what basis is Mr Trump the special case, not subject to the same requirements as other citizens are? He is entitled to no less and no more than anyone else is.
I believe it is to Trump’s benefit, for the reasons outlined by Northern Piper’s anecdote, above. Trump might think that he’s got better things to do (e.g. a political rally) than be in attendance in court, but as illustrated by Northern Piper, the jury in Trump’s matter might disagree.
If Trump shows up, and does act out in court in some way, then I can see him being put in a separate room, with a TV monitor, and a microphone. Which can be switched off, if he won’t stop interrupting.
I don’t want to go into the details of that case, but I would just add that credibility was a significant issue. Jurors are supposed to be assessing the demeanour of plaintiffs and defendants to help them assess credibility issues.