376

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 149 points 10 months ago

Accompanied by whining “they wouldn’t let me”

[-] meco03211@lemmy.world 40 points 10 months ago

Because his remarks will be "leaked" and it will be full of horrendous and inflammatory shit and probably not even be legal (I'm pretty sure there's limits on what can be said in closing statements.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 31 points 10 months ago

from nolo:

In practice, judges give attorneys great freedom at closing, as long as the argument has some relation to the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, judges must carefully craft any restrictions on closing so that they don't deny the defendant the opportunity to discuss important considerations for the jury.

Nonetheless, there are limits to proper closing argument. When attorneys overstep them, usually a judge will simply tell the jury to disregard the improper argument. But when attorneys commit serious misconduct during closing, a judge might declare a mistrial, and if not, a court of appeal might overturn any conviction.

Arguments must be based on evidence. Most importantly, the conclusions that an attorney urges a jury to draw must be based on the evidence. Counsel cannot use the closing argument as an opportunity to refer to evidence that wasn't part of the trial. For example, an attorney can't argue that no similar crimes have been committed in the location in question since the defendant's arrest without having presented evidence to that effect.

Arguments cannot be irrelevant, confusing, or prejudicial. Judges can also prohibit or exclude arguments that are unrelated to the case, confusing, or inflammatory. For example, name-calling is generally forbidden. And asking the jury to "send a message" to other criminals by finding the defendant guilty may be improper since the focus is only whether the particular defendant on trial committed a crime. (State v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (2013).)

*emphasis mine.
**lots of emphasis on that last emphasis. you know why.

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I don't think this trail has a jury and is purely to set damages.

I say this is it is important to the implications.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

The judge basically is the jury. Well, that’s an oversimplification.

There’s still limitations on it, and all that really means is that the people/person making the decision are going to be far less tolerant of name calling and threats,

[-] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

I wonder if that all applies the same way, since this is a civil trial and there is no jury.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

in as far as there's limitations... sure.

I expect if he does do his own closing argument and he goes into making-threats-territory, or something, he's just gonna get muzzled.

I wonder if judges can order actual, literal ball gags for defendants who just won't shut up?

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

I saw a video of a judge that had to send the defendant into another courtroom, then they let him watch on TV and they would turn his mic on to answer questions and then just turn it off when he went a ramblin'.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

I mean, that's effective... but imagine the memes of Trump in a ball gag... (on second thought, don't...I regret everything.)

Actually, that'd be a good set up for debates. put them in sound proof boxes so neither candidate can interfere if the mic is 'Off'. The other thing is, the mic gets sent to two channels, one of which is used to give subtitles, so we can still see the crazy.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 0 points 10 months ago

I would start watching debates again if they made that the setup.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

It’d take issuing swords and dueling vests, for me. Maybe also a parry dagger.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 0 points 10 months ago

Haha, now you're just getting greedy!

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago

if you don't ask, you don't get, so it's always worth taking a stab at it, right?

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024

376 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19145 readers

1909 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News