Or maybe it goes like this:
(Ad walled)
It is a major defence against secret trials. Courts are open so the Public can assess the proceedings. The accused is required to be present to hear all of the prosecution’s case and give instructions to their own lawyers.
It’s not just a matter of slipping a note now and then. Defence counsel are to take instructions from their client, not make all the decisions for their client.
And, you don’t want the accused to argue on appeal that they weren’t aware of what was going on in the courtroom and would have given different instructions if their lawyer had properly advised them of what was happening.
As the DC judge said today, when a person is charged and on trial, the court has first priority on the accused’s presence.
Trump is so stingy he won’t even pay attention to his lawyers.
Or Trump doesn’t show much, gets the guilty verdict, then whines and asks for a mistrial because he couldn’t be there on since he was campaigning and asking him to do so is election interference.
Mr. Trump, let us just suppose that a first-term President, let’s call him “Joe Biden” just for fun, does openly and blatantly attempt to overturn his re-election results, which he clearly and indisputably has lost by a very large margin, but is turned out of office, after which he is tried by his successor’s DoJ. This hypothetical “Joe Biden” announces his candidacy for the upcoming Presidential election, and claims that any attempt to prosecute him for anything is “election interference,” so all such attempts should be quashed since every date proposed for his trial by definition interferes with something on his campaign schedule. How much credibility should we allow this Joe Biden in making such an argument?
Sir? Hello? Is this thing on?
I believe civil is optional, but criminal is not.
Trump must be there for the entirety of the ga, dc, fl, and ny trials. He does not have to attend the Carroll civil trial.
Moderating:
Let’s please stop discussing January 6th matters in the Georgia prosecution thread. Whether an appearance is mandatory depends on the state and the venue, so I understand how the discussion spun off, but we’ve gotten much more into a discussion of matters happening before Judge Chutkan in the election subversion case than on matters to do with hearings in Georgia. Thanks.
Ray smith has waived arraignment and entered a non guilty plea.
From the above linked CNN article:
It’s not clear whether Trump or the co-defendants will appear in person for the arraignment. The court often allows arraignments via Zoom, or defendants can waive their arraignment appearances if the judge allows. It is also unclear at this point if cameras will be allowed in the courtroom.
If it was truly part of Meadows’s responsibility within the government to ensure fair and honest elections, he should be able to provide evidence of all the other elections he sought to intervene in. Failing that, he should be able to show that he evaluated all the other 2020 elections, up and down the ballot, in every state, and found them to be fair, with only the Georgia presidential election requiring his attention.
To the lawyer types, do arguments like that work in court? I suppose it’s a form of proof by contradiction. Can you convince a judge or jury with that sort of reasoning, or is it too indirect to be persuasive? In this case, it might also open the door for Meadows to say “I tried to overturn the elections in Wisconsin and Arizona, too”.
In his motion to dismiss, Meadows argues that he was engaged in First Amendment protected political speech (which would be a violation of the Hatch Act), while in his motion to move the case to Federal Court, he argues that he was acting fully in his (non-political) capacity as Chief of Staff.
Seems he’s trying to have it both ways.
2 more have waived arraignment and have plead not guilty.
The judge stated he needed more information from both sides by Thursday. Possible ruling on Friday in the mark meadows issue.
I thought up thread it was mentioned that Meadows would testify again today?
It appears they did it all in one day, with meadows on the stand for 5 ish hours.
The judge just put out a thing that I am trying to find the exact wording. It is that if one part of the charges is in the scope of meadows’ duties would that one act alone be enough to swing it into federal court.
Willis is pushing to keep her trial together and is asking that a trial date be for all 19.
Here is a PDF of the order. Text below (I did not check for errors in the text file).
ORDER
Having held an evidentiary hearing in the above-captioned matter, the
Court deems it proper to request limited additional briefing on the following
issue:Count 1 of the Indictment (pertaining to Georgia’s
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), O.C.G.A. § 16-14-4(c)) contains a number of
overt acts attributed to Mr. Meadows. Would a finding
that at least one (but not all) of the overt acts charged
occurred under the color of Meadows’s office, be
sufficient for federal removal of a criminal prosecution
under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)?The Parties shall file supplemental briefing by 5:00 p.m., Thursday, August 31, 2023.
I am no lawyer, and a lot of this stuff goes over my head. But, I am confused on the Judge’s question. Isn’t the Judge the one who should answer that, based on established law?
To me, it would seem irrelevant if any of the overt acts occurred under the color of Meadows’ office, as the overt acts are not necessarily illegal and those acts are not what he (or the other defendants) are being tried. They are just to show a conspiracy among the defendants to overturn the results of the Georgia Election.
But, like I said, I don’t know law from Chinese.
I believe the sticking point is that there isn’t anything established about this whole trump mess.
Meadows is the canary in the coal mine for this case.
I"m also not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the judge is asking prosecution and defense to give their best arguments on the question at hand, but the judge will still be the one to issue the ruling. Doing it this way means that the judge will (or at least, should) hear the strongest arguments from each side, which makes it less likely to miss something that will result in overturning on appeal.
Exactly. A judge wants to be briefed by both counsel on any significant legal issue. It’s partly a clash of ideas: you expect both counsel to put forward their best arguments on the issue, and that will help you make your decision. It also eliminates a due process argument on appeal: the judge alerted them that this was a significant issue, and gave both sides the same time to submit briefs on that issue.
Yes, the Atlanta DA now seeks, if I have this right, an October 23, 2023 start for everyone. But even if that’s the date, a big if, Georgia trials can take a long time. This next is an extreme example, but the Trump case is also extraordinarily complex in terms of number of counts and defendants:
YSL RICO trial: July marks 6 months since jury selection began
I know this is from an attorney trying the case in the press, but he is competent:
.
That’s a fair argument.
In civil cases, when they get removed from state to federal court, state claims go with the federal claims (usually) under what’s called pendant jurisdiction. There may be little precedent on criminal removal, especially for overt acts that are part of a criminal conspiracy charged under state law.