I’m uncomfortable with the idea that a defendant has a “choice” to not attend trial. To my mind, that potentially creates scenarios where a person may not be able to attend their own trial because of a coerced or manufactured decision.
I’d much prefer to have a system where a person is expected and presumed to be in attendance, absent extraordinary circumstances. Otherwise, the integrity of the process is possibly called into doubt.
Or, as has already been said
Yeah. Jurors don’t have that option.
I was a juror on a trial where the defendant did not take the stand. But he was there for the trial. We where asked during voir dire if that that would color our opinion of the defendant. I ended up being the foreman on that jury.
It really didn’t mater that he didn’t speak. It was a very open and shut case.
Under Georgia law, employers have to hold the jobs of jurors, but do not have to pay jurors full salary during their service. I read somewhere that because of the length of the Georgia trial, the judge won’t force people who work onto the jury. If incorrect, the loss of income is highly unjust. Jurors will lose their houses. Same could be true of a defendant forced to attend such a long trial.
The prosecution plans to call over 150 witnesses. This raises some question in my mind about posts here claiming it is a slam dunk case. The prosecution apparently thinks that without considering testimony of dozens of witnesses, few of us here have even heard of, let alone know what they claim, the case isn’t proven.
It may be that most of the charges are easily proven, and the 150+ witnesses are needed for the rest.
Quite right. But the reason is right in your post.
You said “the media”. There is not “the media”. There are two medias. One connected to reality that the Reactionary Wacko Traitors never see or hear, and the propaganda machine media they follow avidly, attentively, and unquestioningly.
In that second media, trump’s persecution by forces of Evil, and his stalwart stand against all that Shadowy Evil Power solely for the benefit of Joe Average True American, with not even a moment’s thought for trump’s own self interest, will be the only story they ever hear. And they’ll hear it several times per hour from a dozen spokes-heads. All sounding in unison, therefore proving the perfect unassailable Truth of what they say.
Until we can somehow turn off the propaganda fountain we will never get the USA’s society, and hence its politics, back to a rational grounded-in-reality condition. Never.
That would be their proposed witness list, but it doesn’t mean they’ll wind up calling all of them. The prosecution has a duty to disclose all of the evidence they may – not necessarily will, but may – introduce at trial so that the defendant can prepare their defense based on that full disclosure.
It requires a little imagination to anticipate what the RW media will throw up (in both senses of “throw up”) to justify Trump not attending his own trial.
The range is from “doesn’t want to dignify this show trial with his lordly presence” to “is being forced to choose between running for reelection as YOUR president and sitting in some kangaroo court for weeks on end on his lawyers’ advice.”
No worries about Trump losing his house. Mar a lado has been sold to a family member for (mumble mumble) reason, so all will be well.
That’s pretty standard. Judges understand the financial hardship a long trial can have on jurors. In my experience, judges are pretty lenient in any trial over two or three weeks. For extreme hardships, jurors are released for even short trials.
Such as?
@PhillyGuy , you keep talking about the trials interfering with the democratic process. I’m not an American and have no vote, but from my perspective, having the trials run before the trial is important for the democratic process. Don’t the American voters deserve to know, before they vote, if one of the candidates has been convicted of attempting to overthrow the democratic process and the election of the President, in order to stay in power himself?
So any person in this country who’s been indicted and ordered to stand trial should have this right not to attend said trial? After all, all defendants are presumed innocent, correct?
I’m genuinely curious if you held this belief prior to any charges levelled against Donald Trump.
Indeed, voters need and deserve to know if candidates are criminals before elections. But ISTM that the Right’s position is that anything that interferes with their candidate being elected is ‘interfering with the democratic process’. The logical end is that no candidate or potential candidate can be held accountable for any crimes they committed because that’s election interference. Voters need and deserve speedy trials. (I wish Trump’s trial in Georgia could be earlier. January 6th, 2024 would be nice.)
The Right’s position is, quite simply, that their candidates should never be charged with anything, and should always win elections. It doesn’t have to make sense. They are a simple people with simple minds that cannot process concepts like logic or consistency. The attacks on Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis just for doing their jobs offer plenty of evidence of that basic fact. The recent letter from Jim Jordan to Willis is downright comical in its imbecilic irrationality and abject ignorance, and Willis’ scathing response is a fine piece of writing that vividly exposes said imbecility. It should be totally embarrassing to any normal human but halfwits like Jordan can’t process that, either.
If I was a juror, I’d consider it a blessing if that scowling humanoid was absent.
withdrawn again
I lean towards – yes. And doing that requires taking into account the election timetable!
The federal obstruction case was set up to be relatively simple, with one defendant and four counts. None of the alleged co-conspirators were indicted. It is likely to proceed quickly. Assuming conviction, and someone can correct me, there is a reasonable possibility that appeals will be exhausted before the November 2024 general election.
The Georgia case, with nineteen defendants facing a greater number of counts, will probably be more subject to delay. The prosecution estimates four month of trial time, but they also say it will be longer if any of the nineteen defendants take the stand. Some probably will. From a prosecution standpoint, the advantage of a big trial is that more alleged criminals have high potential to be punished. But I doubt it can all be wrapped up with appeals by November 2024.
I’m not criticizing Willis. What I am saying is that a balancing of the demands of democracy and justice is legitimate.
See:
No way appeals would be exhausted that fast. The trial, sure. Appeals would take 18 to 24 months.
That article says absolutely nothing about Smith and Willis having differing views on “balancing the demands of democracy and justice”. What it says is that Smith as a Federal prosecutor has to consider the possibility that if Trump or another Republican are elected in 2024 they will attempt to subvert justice.
That (the rumor that Trump had sold Mar-a-Lardo to Don Jr.) wasn’t true, someone put up a fake report on Zillow.
No.
I never heard before of a situation where the defendant, who didn’t flee, wanted to give up their right to be present at the time. And maybe Trump won’t request it. But the possibility was mentioned weeks ago in one of these threads. Then, I looked for law review articles on the history of forced attendance (goes back to trial by ordeal!), and forced attendance didn’t sound like a good idea.
Behind this is that I don’t think punishment often does any good.