Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (2 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

Former President D. Trump has been indicted by a New York Grand Jury. There will be much to talk about on this topic because this is just the first step in a lengthy process.
Possibly it is worthy of its own thread here rather than posting about Trump's indictment in already existing threads?
*
This 3/31/23 story might get the ball rolling....
*

Manhattan’s DA wanted a Friday Trump arrest. Trump’s team said no.

Secret Service needed more time to prepare, according to the ex-president’s legal team.

www.yahoo.com

 

[superchuck500]

I'm going to go on record here to say that I believe it is more likely than not that there will indeed be depositions in this Trump Criminal case. True, that is not the usual procedure. But just as true, this is far from a usual case.

I have several reasons for believing that, but I think it is better just to watch it play out and see whether I am correct or not.

In order to grant a motion to depose, the court must find that the witness “will be unable to attend or will be prevented from attending the trial.”

If your belief is not based on that essential requirement, it’s pointless. So who do you think is going to be unavailable?

 

[superchuck500]

I believe that in a deposition there is indeed cross examination. Maybe it isn't called that in a deposition, but lawyers from both sides are allowed to ask questions. @superchuck500 is welcome to confirm or refute that if he likes.

That will be up to the lawyers on each side, and to the judge. I don't see the judge refusing to allow depositions if they are requested by either side. The reason I say that is that the judge would not want a situation in which she refused a deposition and then later something happened to the witness. That would certainly be grounds for one side or the other to demand a mistrial.

I further predict that each side will hint darkly that they need to deposition a witness before something happens to that witness, to imply the other side might do something to that witness.

I say that last part mainly for fun. The more detailed predictions get, the less likely they will exactly come true. I stand by the more simple there will be depositions in this case, though.

Yes, depositions have cross examination.

The prosecution doesn’t need depositions, so they will oppose based on the requirements of Rule 15.

The judge can’t sidestep the those requirements - the person will have to be unavailable for trial. “We’re afraid something might happen to them” isn’t going to be enough without a specific, credible threat (which will result in its own criminal investigation).

 

[superchuck500]

Yes, depositions have cross examination.

Just following up on this, the courts have held that the kind of cross examination in a deposition is not the same as cross examination in the courtroom - primarily because the judge isn’t there to immediately rule on objections and the rules of deposition testimony are more facilitating than trial testimony.

More of why depositions are not typically allowed.

See US v Alvarez, 837 F.2d 1024, 1029 (11th Cir. 1988).

 

[Snarky Sack]

In order to grant a motion to depose, the court must find that the witness “will be unable to attend or will be prevented from attending the trial.”

If your belief is not based on that essential requirement, it’s pointless. So who do you think is going to be unavailable?

Out of the 80 something witnesses that we know of, it would be surprising if every single one is available for sure for however many months so many witnesses will take. I'm not Nostradamus that can predict by name who all it will be.

Those are prosecution witnesses, IIUC. Trump may call a similar number after they've had their time to prepare. Wouldn't put it past him to call a witness with stage 4 cancer so they would have to be deposed.

 

[superchuck500]

Out of the 80 something witnesses that we know of, it would be surprising if every single one is available for sure for however many months so many witnesses will take. I'm not Nostradamus that can predict by name who all it will be.

Those are prosecution witnesses, IIUC. Trump may call a similar number after they've had their time to prepare. Wouldn't put it past him to call a witness with stage 4 cancer so they would have to be deposed.

Why? What is it that’s so meaningful to you about a deposition?

Note also that the rule requires also that the witness be material to the case and that it is “in the interest of justice” to allow it.

Just going and finding some dying stage 4 cancer patient to depose for the hell of it is absurd. The witness has to be genuinely material to the case.

Have you ever been deposed? It’s not fun for the witness. I have probably prepped 75 witnesses for deposition - not one of them enjoyed it and some of them damn near had nervous breakdowns (in fairly inconsequential civil litigation). None of them was in the final stages of a chronic disease, that’s grotesque.

What’s interesting though, because this conversation prompted me to look - there are actually quite a few Rule 15 deposition cases over the past few years, anyone want to guess why?

Answer

Because the witness was ‘unavailable’ due to international travel restrictions during Covid

 

[DaveXA]

Why? What is it that’s so meaningful to you about a deposition?

Note also that the rule requires also that the witness be material to the case and that it is “in the interest of justice” to allow it.

Just going and finding some dying stage 4 cancer patient to depose for the hell of it is absurd. The witness has to be genuinely material to the case.

Have you ever been deposed? It’s not fun for the witness. I have probably prepped 75 witnesses for deposition - not one of them enjoyed it and some of them damn near had nervous breakdowns (in fairly inconsequential civil litigation). None of them was in the final stages of a chronic disease, that’s grotesque.

What’s interesting though, because this conversation prompted me to look - there are actually quite a few Rule 15 deposition cases over the past few years, anyone want to guess why?

Answer

Because the witness was ‘unavailable’ due to international travel restrictions during Covid

That's easy. COVID! Amirite?

Edit: And lol, didn't realize the answer is in the post.

 

[efil4]

Have you ever been deposed? It’s not fun for the witness. I have probably prepped 75 witnesses for deposition - not one of them enjoyed it and some of them damn near had nervous breakdowns (in fairly inconsequential civil litigation). None of them was in the final stages of a chronic disease, that’s grotesque.

makes my anxiety ramp up just thinking about


and side note- how in the WORLD can two attorneys sit across from each other, get in heated arguments, lob some comments back n forth - then when ALL DONE..." hey wanna grab a bite down at XXX? "

True story in my depo. I was flummoxed. LOL

 

[superchuck500]

and side note- how in the WORLD can two attorneys sit across from each other, get in heated arguments, lob some comments back n forth - then when ALL DONE..." hey wanna grab a bite down at XXX? "

True story in my depo. I was flummoxed. LOL

Don’t hate the player . . .

 

[superchuck500]

Out of the 80 something witnesses that we know of, it would be surprising if every single one is available for sure for however many months so many witnesses will take. I'm not Nostradamus that can predict by name who all it will be.

Those are prosecution witnesses, IIUC. Trump may call a similar number after they've had their time to prepare. Wouldn't put it past him to call a witness with stage 4 cancer so they would have to be deposed.

Also, btw, the “84 witnesses” isn’t an actual witness list for trial - it’s a list of people the prosecution wants to be covered under the magistrate’s communication order.

Actual trial witnesses will be determined later - and it won’t be 84. The court will eliminate witnesses with duplicative testimony.

 

[Booker]

makes my anxiety ramp up just thinking about


and side note- how in the WORLD can two attorneys sit across from each other, get in heated arguments, lob some comments back n forth - then when ALL DONE..." hey wanna grab a bite down at XXX? "

True story in my depo. I was flummoxed. LOL

The legal community isn't that big. My wife is a defense attorney and regularly goes up against the same plaintiff's attorneys over and over, so they all know each other, and they all understand the job. Some of them are jerks for sure, but you never know when you might need a favor if you need to extend a deadline or something like that, so it helps to be civil.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Why? What is it that’s so meaningful to you about a deposition?

I don't read any deeper meaning. I just have the opinion that there will be some depositions.

Note also that the rule requires also that the witness be material to the case and that it is “in the interest of justice” to allow it.

Just going and finding some dying stage 4 cancer patient to depose for the hell of it is absurd. The witness has to be genuinely material to the case.

It was just an example. Obviously if either side requests a deposition, they will make a plausible argument for why they need the testimony and why it should be before the trial starts.

My only point about depositions is that I believe there will be some. If someone else thinks there will not because depositions are not allowed or for any other reason, they are welcome to their opinion.

If the reasoning is that it is very unusual to have depositions in Criminal cases, again I fall back on that this is a very unusual case in nearly all respects.

Have you ever been deposed? It’s not fun for the witness. I have probably prepped 75 witnesses for deposition - not one of them enjoyed it and some of them damn near had nervous breakdowns (in fairly inconsequential civil litigation). None of them was in the final stages of a chronic disease, that’s grotesque.

I did videography for some depositions and they are not pleasant. Not much in a criminal case is.

What’s interesting though, because this conversation prompted me to look - there are actually quite a few Rule 15 deposition cases over the past few years, anyone want to guess why?

Not I, that's for sure! You're the expert.

Answer

Because the witness was ‘unavailable’ due to international travel restrictions during Covid

 

[DaveXA]

The legal community isn't that big. My wife is a defense attorney and regularly goes up against the same plaintiff's attorneys over and over, so they all know each other, and they all understand the job. Some of them are jerks for sure, but you never know when you might need a favor if you need to extend a deadline or something like that, so it helps to be civil.

Yep. I used to work for an attorney in Lafayette and he'd talk sometimes about how attorneys he knew would do some trading favors, scratch my back and I'll scratch yours fairly regularly. Mostly small stuff though. It just makes things go easier when there's not much animosity. It definitely did help him get things done.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Also, btw, the “84 witnesses” isn’t an actual witness list for trial - it’s a list of people the prosecution wants to be covered under the magistrate’s communication order.

Actual trial witnesses will be determined later - and it won’t be 84. The court will eliminate witnesses with duplicative testimony.

So this from CNBC is incorrect?

A federal judge on Monday rejected prosecutors' request to submit a sealed list of 84 witnesses whom former President Donald Trump is prohibited from speaking with about the facts of his criminal classified documents case.

Why would they not want Trump to talk to them if they are not witnesses? I get that it is unlikely that every single one will testify. Some may not be available by then for any number of reasons.

Or it may be the old lawyer trick of listing far more witnesses than you will call so the other side has to guess who to prepare for or prepare for them all.

Trump's lawyers may do the same. This is just getting started.

Do You know the judge's reasoning in denying the request? Asking for your opinion, not making any point.

 

[superchuck500]

My only point about depositions is that I believe there will be some. If someone else thinks there will not because depositions are not allowed or for any other reason, they are welcome to their opinion.

If the reasoning is that it is very unusual to have depositions in Criminal cases, again I fall back on that this is a very unusual case in nearly all respects.

This gets to the heart of why I'm asking you for why you think there will be. The reasoning as to why there probably won't be is not simply that "it is very unusual" to have depositions - that's quantitative observation about how typical or atypical they may be, but it isn't why.

"The reasoning" (the why) that there almost certainly won't be depositions is because the likely material witnesses are available to testify at trial. The indictment details a history of document handling that revolves around Trump, Nauta, and a fairly small number of Trump staff, Trump attorneys, and other witnesses (including the writers on the Meadows book). Based on other accounts of the investigation, a wider scope of possible witnesses includes other staff members (including perhaps those on the final days at the White House), possible employees at Mar-a-Lago, and then the folks on the government side including at NARA and FBI.

Yes, it's possible that one or more of these witnesses may be "unavailable" for the purpose of Rule 15 but it seems quite unlikely. It's just an odd hill to plant a flag on.

 

[superchuck500]

So this from CNBC is incorrect?

A federal judge on Monday rejected prosecutors' request to submit a sealed list of 84 witnesses whom former President Donald Trump is prohibited from speaking with about the facts of his criminal classified documents case.

Why would they not want Trump to talk to them if they are not witnesses? I get that it is unlikely that every single one will testify. Some may not be available by then for any number of reasons.

Or it may be the old lawyer trick of listing far more witnesses than you will call so the other side has to guess who to prepare for or prepare for them all.

Trump's lawyers may do the same. This is just getting started.

Do You know the judge's reasoning in denying the request? Asking for your opinion, not making any point.

The non-communication order is a condition of Trump's "personal release" (recognizance) bond, and it only relates to personal communication from Trump himself. Trump is free to contact the witnesses through his counsel, he's simply prohibited from communicating with them on his own. This is not uncommon, it's a "special condition" but it appears in the rule, 18 USC 3142.

I believe that Judge Cannon denied (without prejudice, meaning they can re-submit) the motion to seal the witness list (for the non-communication condition) because the prosecution had not set an adequate foundation for why it should be sealed. I suspect the prosecution will contend that there is ample reason to believe that if a list of potential witnesses were available to the public, there are those in the support of Donald Trump who would threaten those witnesses with violence, or even commit violent acts upon them (see, e.g. J6).

But it only relates to whether the list is public - the defense team will have immediate access to the list.

 

[Snarky Sack]

This gets to the heart of why I'm asking you for why you think there will be. The reasoning as to why there probably won't be is not simply that "it is very unusual" to have depositions - that's quantitative observation about how typical or atypical they may be, but it isn't why.

"The reasoning" (the why) that there almost certainly won't be depositions is because the likely material witnesses are available to testify at trial. The indictment details a history of document handling that revolves around Trump, Nauta, and a fairly small number of Trump staff, Trump attorneys, and other witnesses (including the writers on the Meadows book). Based on other accounts of the investigation, a wider scope of possible witnesses includes other staff members (including perhaps those on the final days at the White House), possible employees at Mar-a-Lago, and then the folks on the government side including at NARA and FBI.

The witnesses are available now. The trial is not now, but later when some them may not be. That's what I think will happen.

Yes, it's possible that one or more of these witnesses may be "unavailable" for the purpose of Rule 15 but it seems quite unlikely. It's just an odd hill to plant a flag on.

I'm not planting a flag, just stating my opinion on what will happen in the future. I will turn out to be right or wrong, but either way I'll be fine with it.

 

[superchuck500]

The witnesses are available now. The trial is not now, but later when some them may not be. That's what I think will happen.

I'm not planting a flag, just stating my opinion on what will happen in the future. I will turn out to be right or wrong, but either way I'll be fine with it.

Why should we anticipate a change in their availability between now and a likely trial date, probably within a year from now?

 

[superchuck500]