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

 

[DaveXA]

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

Juries generally don't let their perception (bias) be the arbiter of facts and justice. The judge will make that clear when outlining what should be considered in determining a verdict.

So no, their perception isn't all it would take. That would be a dereliction of their duty as a juror.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Sure, people have said he has no defense

Fair.

- 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.

Correct.

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've seen estimates of the Mueller Investigation cost ranging from $12M to $32M. Cannot find the cost of Jack Smith's investigation.

Hypothetical question, and I understand lawyers often answer them: Suppose you were indicted for a horrible crime, say a multiple murder in two other states, and the feds indicted you. You KNOW that you didn't do it, but the indictment claims that the DOJ has direct testimony, DNA evidence, and financial records placing you in the location which you KNOW that you have never been to. Your lawyer says, eh - the government has already investigated this pretty thoroughly, so we have no need or ability to reconstruct or repeat the investigation. We'll just go with what they came up with and see if we can make a case for you.

Good idea, or time for a new lawyer?

Extreme example, of course. But Trump's lawyers are not just going to go with what the government provides. They will want to talk to the government's witnesses, trying to overcome the disadvantage that the government has in having talked to them first likely told them that they don't need to cooperate with Trump's lawyers. They will want to analyze any documents to be admitted into evidence, and they will want to find their own experts to talk about the legal requirements surrounding defense information documents and talk about precedents of senior officials handling them.

I think the impression that a lot of people have is that all Trump's lawyers will be able to do is cross-examine DOJ witnesses to shake their story.

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.

I agree with that completely, except I'm probably more convinced than you that Trump will testify. I envision Trump's lawyers having him sign waivers agreeing that they told him not to do it, but do it he will. He can be very persuasive, and I've rarely seen a questioner get the better of him as Jack Smith would try to do.

All he needs is one juror for a mistrial, correct me if I'm wrong. More than six and the DOJ would look foolish asking to try him again.

 

[Booker]

Going by this article, it appears likely that Trump's defense will revolve around the Presidential Records Act...

Confused Trump demanded "my documents" back — after lawyers warned him he'd be indicted: report

Trump claimed materials belong to "me" and that it was "illegal" for him to no longer have access to the documents

www.yahoo.com

 

[Snarky Sack]

Juries generally don't let their perception (bias) be the arbiter of facts and justice. The judge will make that clear when outlining what should be considered in determining a verdict.

So no, their perception isn't all it would take. That would be a dereliction of their duty as a juror.

What's the penalty for that, and how would it be proven?

 

[DaveXA]

Going by this article, it appears likely that Trump's defense will revolve around the Presidential Records Act...

Confused Trump demanded "my documents" back — after lawyers warned him he'd be indicted: report

Trump claimed materials belong to "me" and that it was "illegal" for him to no longer have access to the documents

www.yahoo.com

If that's his legal team's strategy, they're gonna lose, and badly.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Going by this article, it appears likely that Trump's defense will revolve around the Presidential Records Act...

Confused Trump demanded "my documents" back — after lawyers warned him he'd be indicted: report

Trump claimed materials belong to "me" and that it was "illegal" for him to no longer have access to the documents

www.yahoo.com

I think that I will choose not to go by a Salon article.

It's pretty funny to think of Trump telling the feds to give him back his dang documents. Wonderment to me is that Trump has no Texas blood that I know of. But, as Hank Hill found out, many New Yorkers had Texas qualities.

 

[superchuck500]

Fair.

Correct.

I've seen estimates of the Mueller Investigation cost ranging from $12M to $32M. Cannot find the cost of Jack Smith's investigation.

Hypothetical question, and I understand lawyers often answer them: Suppose you were indicted for a horrible crime, say a multiple murder in two other states, and the feds indicted you. You KNOW that you didn't do it, but the indictment claims that the DOJ has direct testimony, DNA evidence, and financial records placing you in the location which you KNOW that you have never been to. Your lawyer says, eh - the government has already investigated this pretty thoroughly, so we have no need or ability to reconstruct or repeat the investigation. We'll just go with what they came up with and see if we can make a case for you.

Good idea, or time for a new lawyer?

Extreme example, of course. But Trump's lawyers are not just going to go with what the government provides. They will want to talk to the government's witnesses, trying to overcome the disadvantage that the government has in having talked to them first likely told them that they don't need to cooperate with Trump's lawyers. They will want to analyze any documents to be admitted into evidence, and they will want to find their own experts to talk about the legal requirements surrounding defense information documents and talk about precedents of senior officials handling them.

I think the impression that a lot of people have is that all Trump's lawyers will be able to do is cross-examine DOJ witnesses to shake their story.

I agree with that completely, except I'm probably more convinced than you that Trump will testify. I envision Trump's lawyers having him sign waivers agreeing that they told him not to do it, but do it he will. He can be very persuasive, and I've rarely seen a questioner get the better of him as Jack Smith would try to do.

All he needs is one juror for a mistrial, correct me if I'm wrong. More than six and the DOJ would look foolish asking to try him again.

I think you're confusing what I said about reconstructing the federal investigation versus proper diligence in defending a criminal defendant - but sure, to your point, if you want to make the analogy to murder (which is wildly off-base), then Trump should attempt to reconstruct the entire investigation. But isn't that sort full throated, complete investigation that the government performed pointless here?

This isn't a murder case where the person didn't do it. Trump isn't saying he didn't remove the materials, or store them as accused, or obstruct and attempt to conceal the material after it was demanded to be returned. He's saying that those things he did weren't illegal . . . that his conduct doesn't fit the charges.

It's very different than hiring a DNA expert to refute the government's DNA expert. Or hiring a team of PI's to find where the law enforcement investigation made errors as to the identity of the murder or where the defendant was.

His position appears to be one of degree and interpretation, not of mistaken identity or some other argument that he didn't actually have the material and the government is mistaken. His defense is going to be that his conduct doesn't fit the elements of the charged crimes - that's the only defense he has. And it could be successful if done properly.

I think whether he testifies will be a game-time decision based on how its going and what he wants to do. I wouldn't be so sure he's a super-star under cross examination, the plaintiff was able to use his deposition testimony against him pretty effectively. (He even misidentified Jean Carroll as being his own wife, lol).

 

[superchuck500]

I think that I will choose not to go by a Salon article.

It's pretty funny to think of Trump telling the feds to give him back his dang documents. Wonderment to me is that Trump has no Texas blood that I know of. But, as Hank Hill found out, many New Yorkers had Texas qualities.

Not if they were never "his" documents in the first place.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I think you're confusing what I said about reconstructing the federal investigation versus proper diligence in defending a criminal defendant - but sure, to your point, if you want to make the analogy to murder (which is wildly off-base), then Trump should attempt to reconstruct the entire investigation. But isn't that sort full throated, complete investigation that the government performed pointless here?

It is not pointless. But it is less pointfull than it would be in my murder example, which I admit was extreme and not what we are talking about with Trump. From the standpoint of gathering evidence for the trial Trump doesn't need a full-throated complete investigation. Much of his defense I would predict would rely on arguing a different legal interpretation of the facts that they government will show evidence for.

The time he will need will be for questioning government witnesses (all 84, whether they are eventually called or not), seeking information to use on cross. They will also need time to find the experts to present their theory of the history of presidential and ex-presidential handling of defense related documents, starting likely from Washington, and to carefully rehearse their testimony.

I've served on several mock juries, but have been rejected for several real ones. Because of my demographic and my answers to questions, I wouldn't be either side's first choice in a civil or criminal trial. More information than you need for me to tell you that team Trump will likely want to run several mock juries, under the guidance of jury consultants. That will take time.

Those are only the things this layman can come up with. Trump's lawyers can come up with much more. Most likely not as much time as the government took, nor as much money as the government spent.

However . . . from the standpoint of influencing the jury, nothing would help Trumpers on the jury convince their undecided peers that Trump is being treated unfairly than for the government to ask that Team Trump's time for preparation of their defense be cut short, or that Team Trump explain what is taking them so long, when the government allowed itself as much time as it decided to take, and had no limit on its funding.

This isn't a murder case where the person didn't do it. Trump isn't saying he didn't remove the materials, or store them as accused, or obstruct and attempt to conceal the material after it was demanded to be returned. He's saying that those things he did weren't illegal . . . that his conduct doesn't fit the charges.

Yes, that is true. I only used the extreme example to make the point that the defense doesn't just have to try to pick apart the case the government presents, they can and will present their own case.

It's very different than hiring a DNA expert to refute the government's DNA expert. Or hiring a team of PI's to find where the law enforcement investigation made errors as to the identity of the murder or where the defendant was.

Will the government have expert witnesses to explain to the jury why what Trump did was illegal, or will they just show the jury what Trump did and argue in closing that it was illegal? Or what do you think will happen in that regard?

His position appears to be one of degree and interpretation, not of mistaken identity or some other argument that he didn't actually have the material and the government is mistaken. His defense is going to be that his conduct doesn't fit the elements of the charged crimes - that's the only defense he has. And it could be successful if done properly.

I agree except that that will be the defense, but I don't think that is the only defense he has.

He could argue that the search warrant was so improperly obtained so all materials seized should be thrown out. The DOJ has history in regards to improperly obtained warrants. Very recent history, in fact.

He could say that he never saw some of the more incriminating documents in his house and has no idea where they came from, but that he did have a lot of strange armed men come in his house right before they were found, and that his lawyer was forced to wait outside while they did nobody knows what.

If Trump has something on his security tapes that shows any FBI misconduct at all, the DOJ's case is done. If he has something that is ambiguous but can be argued might be misconduct, the case is damaged.

Does it not happen sometimes that the defense offers more than one theory of innocence, like my client did not do it, but even if you find that he did, it was not illegal, and even if you find that he did it and it was illegal, he did not know it was, so no criminal intent?

I think whether he testifies will be a game-time decision based on how its going and what he wants to do. I wouldn't be so sure he's a super-star under cross examination, the plaintiff was able to use his deposition testimony against him pretty effectively. (He even misidentified Jean Carroll as being his own wife, lol).

I'm glad we never had another president who would mistake someone else for his wife, if you will pardon the mild sarcasm.

 

[MT15]

Well, what do you know?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Not if they were never "his" documents in the first place.

I think it is even funnier if Trump is wrong.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Can you point to where the law says anything about the number of potential witnesses having any bearing on whether or not depositions are warranted? What about similar rulings in previous cases?

 

[FullMonte]

I agree except that that will be the defense, but I don't think that is the only defense he has.

Interesting. So, his only defense is not to pick about the prosecution's case. But...

He could argue that the search warrant was so improperly obtained so all materials seized should be thrown out. The DOJ has history in regards to improperly obtained warrants. Very recent history, in fact.

He could say that he never saw some of the more incriminating documents in his house and has no idea where they came from, but that he did have a lot of strange armed men come in his house right before they were found, and that his lawyer was forced to wait outside while they did nobody knows what.

If Trump has something on his security tapes that shows any FBI misconduct at all, the DOJ's case is done. If he has something that is ambiguous but can be argued might be misconduct, the case is damaged.

All of these other examples are just examples of him picking apart the prosecution's case. In simple reality, that IS his only potential defense. He can't present a case to somehow try and claim that he did not do what he is accused of, because he has stated, publicly, on numerous occasions that he did have the documents. Trying to present a defense that he didn't have the documents would be folly, because his own words would be used to destroy that case.

I'm glad we never had another president who would mistake someone else for his wife, if you will pardon the mild sarcasm.

That's not mild sarcasm, it's blatant intentional ignorance. The issue mentioned was not that he simply mistook another woman for his wife. It was that he repeatedly made public statements that there was no way that he would have sexually assaulted Ms. Caroll because she was not his type. Then, while under oath, he mistook Ms. Carroll for his wife, eradicating that possible defense.

 

[MT15]

He might need new legal strategies. I would suggest begging for a plea deal:

 

[Booker]

He might need new legal strategies. I would suggest begging for a plea deal:

Additionally, it is understood that Mr Smith’s team is ready to bring charges against several of the attorneys who have worked for Mr Trump, including those who aided the ex-president in his push to ignore the will of voters and remain in the White House despite having lost the 2020 election.

Good.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Interesting. So, his only defense is not to pick about the prosecution's case. But...



All of these other examples are just examples of him picking apart the prosecution's case.

What about this that I said before that:

They will also need time to find the experts to present their theory of the history of presidential and ex-presidential handling of defense related documents, starting likely from Washington, and to carefully rehearse their testimony.

I suppose in a broad sense, any defense at all would be an attempt to pick apart the prosecutions case. Maybe I can explain it better.

Trump is not limited to trying to find small mistakes in the prosecution's facts or interpretation. If he were, he would not put on any witnesses, just hope to find small mistakes in cross examination of the government's witnesses.

He can put on witnesses to provide either a new set of facts to add to the government's facts, such as previous ex-president's actions. He can put on fact witnesses to dispute some of the government's presented facts. He can show evidence of government misconduct if he has it, which would not be finding small mistakes, but undermining the entire case. We know for a fact that the government has committed misconduct in investigating Trump. So will the jury.

Again, I'm not Trump's lawyers. He is paying them big bucks to come up with defenses, and come up with them they will.

Of course, all the anti-Trump talking heads will bring on experts to say Trump's lawyers are full of beans, but they won't be on the jury.

In simple reality, that IS his only potential defense. He can't present a case to somehow try and claim that he did not do what he is accused of, because he has stated, publicly, on numerous occasions that he did have the documents. Trying to present a defense that he didn't have the documents would be folly, because his own words would be used to destroy that case.

What documents did he say that he had though? Did he say, "Yes, I had documents with national defense information!" Quote and link, please.

That's not mild sarcasm, it's blatant intentional ignorance. The issue mentioned was not that he simply mistook another woman for his wife. It was that he repeatedly made public statements that there was no way that he would have sexually assaulted Ms. Caroll because she was not his type. Then, while under oath, he mistook Ms. Carroll for his wife, eradicating that possible defense.

I'll see a quote on that also, if you please. I'm from Missouri.

Oh, wait. Don't waste your time on that one. I just re-read your claim and that interpretation is absurd. Is Joe Biden's sister that he mistook for his wife, "his type?"

Ok, bad example maybe.

 

[superchuck500]

It is not pointless. But it is less pointfull than it would be in my murder example, which I admit was extreme and not what we are talking about with Trump. From the standpoint of gathering evidence for the trial Trump doesn't need a full-throated complete investigation. Much of his defense I would predict would rely on arguing a different legal interpretation of the facts that they government will show evidence for.

The time he will need will be for questioning government witnesses (all 84, whether they are eventually called or not), seeking information to use on cross. They will also need time to find the experts to present their theory of the history of presidential and ex-presidential handling of defense related documents, starting likely from Washington, and to carefully rehearse their testimony.

I've served on several mock juries, but have been rejected for several real ones. Because of my demographic and my answers to questions, I wouldn't be either side's first choice in a civil or criminal trial. More information than you need for me to tell you that team Trump will likely want to run several mock juries, under the guidance of jury consultants. That will take time.

Those are only the things this layman can come up with. Trump's lawyers can come up with much more. Most likely not as much time as the government took, nor as much money as the government spent.

However . . . from the standpoint of influencing the jury, nothing would help Trumpers on the jury convince their undecided peers that Trump is being treated unfairly than for the government to ask that Team Trump's time for preparation of their defense be cut short, or that Team Trump explain what is taking them so long, when the government allowed itself as much time as it decided to take, and had no limit on its funding.

Yes, that is true. I only used the extreme example to make the point that the defense doesn't just have to try to pick apart the case the government presents, they can and will present their own case.

Will the government have expert witnesses to explain to the jury why what Trump did was illegal, or will they just show the jury what Trump did and argue in closing that it was illegal? Or what do you think will happen in that regard?

I agree except that that will be the defense, but I don't think that is the only defense he has.

He could argue that the search warrant was so improperly obtained so all materials seized should be thrown out. The DOJ has history in regards to improperly obtained warrants. Very recent history, in fact.

He could say that he never saw some of the more incriminating documents in his house and has no idea where they came from, but that he did have a lot of strange armed men come in his house right before they were found, and that his lawyer was forced to wait outside while they did nobody knows what.

If Trump has something on his security tapes that shows any FBI misconduct at all, the DOJ's case is done. If he has something that is ambiguous but can be argued might be misconduct, the case is damaged.

Does it not happen sometimes that the defense offers more than one theory of innocence, like my client did not do it, but even if you find that he did, it was not illegal, and even if you find that he did it and it was illegal, he did not know it was, so no criminal intent?

I'm glad we never had another president who would mistake someone else for his wife, if you will pardon the mild sarcasm.

DOJ isn't going to lose on the warrant - there may be some room to challenge chain of custody issues (and that's where potential video could come into play).

The pre-trial timelines are handled every day in district court. It's not going to be novel for the defense to say they need time for their expert(s), but that's in almost every case. I'm not really sure that a history of presidents handling documents is terribly relevant as to the elements of the charges. And the prosecution can't use experts to opine on whether the conduct was illegal, that's for the jury to decide - experts are allowed to assist the court (jury) in understanding or interpreting facts, not law. But I think more generally, the parties may have an expert on what constitutes national security material and who is authorized to possess it, as a fact matter of course. But I'm not sure, it's a really mixed issue (fact and law).

Yes, the defense can offer different theories, it's the prosecution's burden of proof - the defense can take shots at it however they wish.

 

[Snarky Sack]

He might need new legal strategies. I would suggest begging for a plea deal:

What?!?!

The Special Counsel was not satisfied with the YUGE outpouring of support Trump got from the first thirty-something counts?