In Georgia, I think he’s considered peach colored.
I haven’t been in trials that large, but I have been in multi party trials. Typically one attorney objects and the rest either “join” or more likely, have a standing agreement that any objection by one is on behalf of all unless they state otherwise.
But in those trials, was the primary purpose of the objections to delay, delay, delay?
No, but a strong judge can put an end to the silliness. I’m sure there will be some of that, but in the end they’re just pissing off the judge and jury, two things you don’t want to do at trial.
If he thought that was going to fly, then he’s a bigger idiot than I already believed him to be.
If his trial were removed, that would imply an acceptance of his argument that he was acting within the scope and color of his role as CoS. Which may tilt the scales in the direction of a dismissal.
(Or he’s a really big idiot.)
So…is trump going to jet in and giant motorcade every time he’s supposed to appear in court?
His legal strategy, such as it was, makes the denial of his motion to remove a bigger deal than it seemed, and the schadenfreude all the sweeter!
In a trial like this, I think it was suggested (perhaps upthread) that he does not have to be present during trial proceedings. However, I believe, based on my jury duty experiences, that he does have to attend voire dire so that the court can obtain definitive assertions about jurors not having association with any parties involved.
Of course, not attending your own trial is not going to play well with the jury. He would be seen as an arrogant bastard who looks down his nose at plebes like them, which is really not at all what he is like, no, no, no.
I was under the impression that a criminal defendant had to be there for trial, but apparently I was mistaken. I’m curious as to whether Trump will bother attending trial or figure that his time is better spent campaigning and fleecing rubes of their hard earned money.
I mean, I saw an anecdote somewhere, which involved a multi-defendant case, and the defendant who got nailed hardest by the jury was the one who could not be bothered to show up for every day’s proceedings, but it also might have been a civil action. Been a while since I saw the posting.
I don’t think we’ll see much of that anymore. Oh, the jet, yes; it’s how he gets around. But at his most recent arraignment in Georgia, I’m sure that he expected to see streets lined by supporters in New Jersey and Georgia. Big impressive motorcade, eight to ten black SUVs, a motorcycle escort, even an ambulance; hell, it’s a parade, the streets should be lined with his fans carrying Trump flags, and he is Santa Claus at the end of it.
But that didn’t happen. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that New Jerseyians and Georgians resented such a display, as it shut down roads they need to go about their daily business. Hopefully, Trump saw the lack of supporters, and realized that he is just not that important any more.
Well, he will always think that he is the most important person in the universe. But maybe, given the lack of cheering crowds on those trips, he might start to realizing that he is not as important as he thinks he is.
I was under the same impression, if it’s a criminal trial. And every site I’ve looked at says the same thing.
For example, the Cornell Law School site has this:
Rule 43. Defendant’s Presence
(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:
(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;
(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and
(3) sentencing.
withdrawn.
Usually when the defendant is a no-show, it isn’t with the permission of the judge. If the judge gives permission for the defendant to be excused, consistent with case law in that jurisdiction, and the jury makes a negative inference, that’s one bad jury. They should be looking at evidence, not some bad feeling they have about the defendant.
If any of the judges excuse Trump from attendance, maybe they will tell the jury not to draw an inference.
Why would a judge excuse Trump from attending? Trump is lucky not to be in a holding cell right now.
Probably nothing. Defense attorneys want their clients present to address issues as they come up. I don’t expect Trump to be excused from attendance.
Haven’t our attorneys already addressed this? According to the Cornell reference, judges do not have the authority to waive attendance in Federal criminal trials, except for the two rules noted (which do not apply to Trump). There is no case law that supersedes unambiguous legislation requiring the defendant’s presence. Judges may not decide they’ll ignore that law.
Trump will be cooling his heels in the courtroom.
I swear, there are people who think Trump is some kind of king or something, and should be treated with ridiculous deference.
I hear ya. It galls me. He’s just a regular human being, and a rather awful one at that. He deserves every consideration of our legal system. But no more and no less.