Trump Indictment ( includes NY AG and Fed documents case ) (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Snarky Sack]

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

Just because, in general, people's situations change.

 

[Snarky Sack]

That is not going to sit well with the people currently in the jury pool. The prosecution went for an indictment when they hadn't even finished their investigation? Are they going to be providing discovery now and then later providing more discovery?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

That is not going to sit well with the people currently in the jury pool. The prosecution went for an indictment when they hadn't even finished their investigation? Are they going to be providing discovery now and then later providing more discovery?

Or.......It could be separate charges that Smith wanted to keep separate from his current case in order to mitigate confusion.

 

[superchuck500]

That is not going to sit well with the people currently in the jury pool. The prosecution went for an indictment when they hadn't even finished their investigation? Are they going to be providing discovery now and then later providing more discovery?

It seems you have erroneous preconceptions about the grand jury process and presume (1) the jury pool shares your erroneous preconceptions and (2) will react to those misplaced concerns in the same way you do.

Grand juries are authorized to sit for up to 18 months, and can be extended by various authorities. The Watergate grand jury convened on June 5, 1972 and did not conclude until December 4, 1974. Along the way, it issued 69 indictments as the investigation made its way through the material. Quite simply - grand jury indictments do not have to wait until the entire investigation is complete, particularly when the conduct at issue takes place over a lengthy period of time, involves a significant number of people, and occurs in numerous locations.

Yes, the defense of anyone indicted by this grand jury will receive transcripts of the grand jury testimony per discovery rules.

 

[superchuck500]

Just because, in general, people's situations change.

As a general matter, yes of course they do. But the vast majority of changes in people's situations don't impact that person's availability for a federal subpoena to testify at trial.

 

[Snarky Sack]

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.

That makes sense.

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).

I wonder why they did not contend that the first time they made the request or was it a motion?

I'll guess at the answer to my own question, but I'm sure you will have more insight. My guess is that the prosecution knows that it should confine its accusations to the defendants Trump and Nauta. Any perceived attack on Trump supporters will only galvanize those in the jury pool.

Saying, even in the most lawyery terms, WTTE of "come on Judge! You know what violent butt crevices these Trump supporters are!" Won't go over as well with potential jury members as it would on this message board.

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

Good, that is as it should be. If we can maybe get past the whole will there be depositions debate, I have a comment for some on with your level of expertise.

There seems to be a lot of expressions of surprise that Trump is even going to put on a defense. During the investigation, well the numerous investigations, Trump has been forced to be pretty passive other than constantly talking about it. There have really been very few legal steps for Trump to take.

But now that he is indicted, there are plenty of legal steps available to his team of lawyers with a budget nearly as unlimited as the department of justices. That is one of the big reasons that this trial is unique. Most defendants have no hope of even approaching the resources that the government has to go after them with.

We should Buckle our seat belts, because it is going to be a ride.

 

[superchuck500]

There seems to be a lot of expressions of surprise that Trump is even going to put on a defense. During the investigation, well the numerous investigations, Trump has been forced to be pretty passive other than constantly talking about it. There have really been very few legal steps for Trump to take.

But now that he is indicted, there are plenty of legal steps available to his team of lawyers with a budget nearly as unlimited as the department of justices. That is one of the big reasons that this trial is unique. Most defendants have no hope of even approaching the resources that the government has to go after them with.

We should Buckle our seat belts, because it is going to be a ride.

I agree that it's nonsensical to think that Trump won't put on a defense - who is suggesting that? Of course he's going to put on a defense, he already is.

I'm not really sure what steps he can take or how this case is particularly resource-driven. For example, if the case involved some kind of expensive expert analysis, like genetic material evaluation or high-tech simulations of an incident, something like that, I would agree that often the defense can be under-resourced. I don't really see how those kinds of expenses are implicated here.

I think the only area where Trump will have ground to gain if he has good counsel and there is indeed ground to gain could be on the factual allegations and the admissibility of some of the evidence. This is always where defense has opportunity and we'll see how that goes. The contours of those disputes are hard to anticipate until we get much closer to trial or even in trial.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Just because, in general, people's situations change.

If that was part of the consideration, depositions would be the norm and not reserved for exceptional circumstances.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I agree that it's nonsensical to think that Trump won't put on a defense - who is suggesting that? Of course he's going to put on a defense, he already is.

That is just the impression I have gotten taking into account the totality of all the posts I have read on the subject. Many of them consisted not of posters outright saying that he won't put on a defense, but words to the effect of what possible defense could he have?

I'm not really sure what steps he can take or how this case is particularly resource-driven. For example, if the case involved some kind of expensive expert analysis, like genetic material evaluation or high-tech simulations of an incident, something like that, I would agree that often the defense can be under-resourced. I don't really see how those kinds of expenses are implicated here.

I'm not sure what you mean by not particularly resource driven. I'll check, but it appears to me that a very large amount of money and time have been spent on this case. That seems pretty resource driven even if it doesn't necessarily require out of state forensics experts and whatnot.

Would you measure a case's degree of being resource driven by how much resources are spent on it, or some other factor?

I think the only area where Trump will have ground to gain if he has good counsel and there is indeed ground to gain could be on the factual allegations and the admissibility of some of the evidence. This is always where defense has opportunity and we'll see how that goes. The contours of those disputes are hard to anticipate until we get much closer to trial or even in trial.

That makes sense. Do you anticipate Trump side calling any witnesses? What about Trump himself?

 

[Snarky Sack]

If that was part of the consideration, depositions would be the norm and not reserved for exceptional circumstances.

In a case with say five witnesses on each side, a change in situation for any one of them warranting a deposition isn't that likely.

But with 84 witnesses on one side, and possibly as many or more on the the other, the probability rises.

 

[Booker]

It seems you have erroneous preconceptions...

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It seems you have erroneous preconceptions about the grand jury process and presume (1) the jury pool shares your erroneous preconceptions and (2) will react to those misplaced concerns in the same way you do.

Grand juries are authorized to sit for up to 18 months, and can be extended by various authorities. The Watergate grand jury convened on June 5, 1972 and did not conclude until December 4, 1974. Along the way, it issued 69 indictments as the investigation made its way through the material. Quite simply - grand jury indictments do not have to wait until the entire investigation is complete, particularly when the conduct at issue takes place over a lengthy period of time, involves a significant number of people, and occurs in numerous locations.

Yes, the defense of anyone indicted by this grand jury will receive transcripts of the grand jury testimony per discovery rules.

But it will not be the grand jury that Trump is tried in front of. It will be be made of of randomly selected Florida voters among whom Republicans support Trump even over their own popular Republican governor. One need not be a rabid Trump supporter to perceive that Trump is being subjected to a double standard.

 

[MT15]

But it will not be the grand jury that Trump is tried in front of. It will be be made of of randomly selected Florida voters among whom Republicans support Trump even over their own popular Republican governor. One need not be a rabid Trump supporter to perceive that Trump is being subjected to a double standard.

Except for the fact that he’s not being subjected to a double standard at all. In fact, Trump has been given deference never showed to other people who did what he did.

 

[Booker]

 

[superchuck500]

But it will not be the grand jury that Trump is tried in front of. It will be be made of of randomly selected Florida voters among whom Republicans support Trump even over their own popular Republican governor. One need not be a rabid Trump supporter to perceive that Trump is being subjected to a double standard.

Subjected to a double-standard because the grand jury indicted him before it was finished? That's not a double-standard. That's sometimes how grand juries work.

 

[superchuck500]

That is just the impression I have gotten taking into account the totality of all the posts I have read on the subject. Many of them consisted not of posters outright saying that he won't put on a defense, but words to the effect of what possible defense could he have?

I'm not sure what you mean by not particularly resource driven. I'll check, but it appears to me that a very large amount of money and time have been spent on this case. That seems pretty resource driven even if it doesn't necessarily require out of state forensics experts and whatnot.

Would you measure a case's degree of being resource driven by how much resources are spent on it, or some other factor?

That makes sense. Do you anticipate Trump side calling any witnesses? What about Trump himself?

Sure, people have said he has no defense - I think that's just prognosticating that the known facts appear to substantially confirm the charges, but I think that's quite different from saying he won't put on a defense. Not putting on a defense is effectively conceding the case, which clearly isn't happening.

The defense doesn't have the need nor the ability to reconstruct or repeat the entire federal investigation - so the expense the government has put into the investigation is apples to the oranges of defending the case. What matters are the actual litigation expenses. There may be one expert for each side on handling of national security information (maybe?) but I don't see that trying this case is particularly resource-intensive compared to other kinds of cases.

I think putting on a defense will involve calling witnesses, yes - so Trump will likely call witnesses. It's very hard to predict whether he will take the stand. Typically, the defendant taking the stand is a bad idea and it's uncommon. But in some cases it might make sense. Here, the defendant has a large personality and if the defense believes that the prosecution has done a good job with the case and they're basically staring at a guilty verdict, why not let Trump see if he can use his personality to appeal to the jury. The risk, though, is that he could expose himself to additional jeopardy (e.g. perjury or other crimes) but to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he took the stand. We know he wants to - he wants to explain himself, why what he did was "perfect" and nothing wrong.

But the standard play would be for him not to.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Except for the fact that he’s not being subjected to a double standard at all. In fact, Trump has been given deference never showed to other people who did what he did.

The perception is there, which is all it will take.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Subjected to a double-standard because the grand jury indicted him before it was finished? That's not a double-standard. That's sometimes how grand juries work.

No, not just that one thing. Rightly or wrongly, they will see that as just one more example of the two-tiered justice system.