261
Defense moves for mistrial over Daniels' testimony
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
261 points (95.5% liked)
News
23409 readers
2051 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'm not a lawyer, so interested in learning...
Isn't this what the purpose of objecting is? If the defense fails to object while it's happening... Isn't that kinda on them?
I dont think Trump can afford the same quality of lawyers as 4 years ago
Maybe he could if he didn’t blow all his money on ~~avocado toast~~ paying hush money to porn stars. Oh and the defamation civil suits with the woman he raped…
Don't forget he stiffed Michael Cohen out of some of those hush money payments. It was probably a reflective move from a lifetime of dumping on friends.
This, but only partly because of his own wealth/liquidity. He's a difficult client, late at paying his bills, and being associated with him smears your name with half the country, including even a not-insignificant percentage of rich assholes..
From the lawyers that don't reject him at any hourly rate, he's likely now getting the "Fuck you" price, where you don't want the job but you put out a crazy number to avoid simply saying no.
Or his lawyers are going to appeal and say "See? It was so bad the judge even said something!"
To win an appeal, they would probably need to show that the judge screwed up. But you're suggesting that they would argue that the judge did something correctly.
I wonder if they didn't object specifically to allow testimony they planned to declare prejudicial.
Been following the NYT live coverage for most of the day. The defense claimed that they did not object more because there was intense discussion before the jury was brought in for the day about what the prosecution could cover in Daniels' testimony. The defense believed that the questions asked were following what the prosecution and judge had agreed upon and that their objections would not be received well.
It's a flimsy justification, but that was their response during the mistrial discussion.
Well, that’s a spin! And one I don’t buy fully. Make the objections anyway and get shot down, but I personally think they wanted the mistrial motion, which they had to know also wouldn’t work..
My thoughts exactly.
That's what I believe they are doing. Trump has decent lawyers for his criminal trial. They're ruining their credibility as good lawyers, but they absolutely DO understand the law.
They knew they could object but chose not to so they could file for a mistrial. Of course, as has been pointed out, defense would have needed to object at the time. But they have to try something. Shit like this seems to buy them delay time more often than not.
Their next motion will be to declare a mistrial because the defense is so incompetent.
Yes. The judge pointed it out to them:
Because this was their plan all along.
Edit: request already rejected, but I’m sure they’ll mention it on appeal.
That's fine.
Convicts in New York start their sentence during the criminal appeal process.
Is the second quote saying that the judge stepped in because the defense was being so shit?
Yes
Your honor I demand a mistrial due my client’s ineffective counsel!
If you object and stop it you can't ask for a mistrial.
IANAL but if you don't object you still can't ask for a mistrial unless you argue that the defense given by the lawyers was literally incompetent, and I'm far from an expert but i think that's a pretty hard bar to reach. Especially if pre-trial they would put that lawyer on the stand and ask why they didn't object during the testimony but only complained after the testimony, and i can't imagine any valid argument that would be accepted by a court.
Bottom line, I'm not an expert at all, but if they purposely didn't object so that they could ask for a mistrial, I'm pretty sure that won't work at all
I agree with you, but that's exactly what they did. As others like to point out the only play he has to get away with his alleged activities is to delay until after the election, if he wins then his legal problems magically all go away or he loses and we find out if he stays to finish any legal battle or he goes the route of Edward Snowdon.
But the defendent is in prison during the appeal. Not sure they thought that through.
Yes. Mistrial is only even something irreversible happens and the trial became unfair. If you didn't call bullshit at the time, you are not allowed to complain about everything later. And because you didn't object, there's also no preserved issue for appeal.
Btw I think the judge would be able to base their opinion in latches. But I might be wrong.
That’s a good point, I remember a challenge to voir dire only happened when a defendant insisted his attorney object during selection.