What was that about intimidating witnesses?
1 Like
I don’t love these two cases going first in October.
If they’re not severed, aren’t they still all moving on the same timeline? Just a faster one?
I kind of like something being done IN PUBLIC. How many times is his name going to come up. It’s the anti-Trump vote that matters in the general next year. Anything that buttresses that is a win.
No, the judge rules that those two are being tried together in October, not all of them, because those two are the only two that requested a “speedy trial.” A lot could still change though.
I think the Georgia case is tougher/weaker than the two federal cases. A hung jury is extremely live, and an acquittal is not impossible. In my ideal world the J6 trial would go first.
This barely even made the news:
Liable as a matter of law on one of the other defamation cases because of the previous jury verdict and the new jury will only decide damages.
I just read the article, it looks like he denied their request to sever from each other but has not yet ruled on the prosecutors’ request to try all 19 at once, although he’s skeptical. They’re arguing that the witnesses are going to be the same regardless, so it would basically force the court to hear the same testimony over and over from ~150 witnesses if they don’t go together. Voir dire is also going to be a beast, so it seems like one way to go here (laymans logistical perspective) is to start voir dire 10/23 and then if it somehow miraculously moves too fast, have another month or two before the rest of the trial. Is that a thing that can be done?
Lol they’re basically setting up an express lane for Trump to pay Carroll after he repeatedly defames her.
1 Like
And while that’s happening he’ll be barred from commenting about it lolololol
There’s no universe in which 19 people can be tried at the same time. It’s just completely infeasible. That’s 19 sets of attorneys cross-examining each witness. Arguments on each objection would take hours.
You can adjourn for a period of time after voir dire. But again, I still don’t see how you logistically do it with 19 parties. I think they are gambling on a bunch pleading and flipping before trial. They literally would have to rent out some kind of conference center or something, no way they have a courtroom with enough space.
Put it in the Georgia Dome and sell tickets imo.
2 Likes
I also think it’s just too much for one jury to sort through. I don’t know what the world record for co-defendant trials in the modern American justice system is, but I’d bet it’s a lot less than 19. They could also do multiple juries I guess but that makes it even more complex.
So we thinking these defendants are trying to do stalling techniques in their own interests and their bluff got called or that there some larger overarching strategy here to maximize benefit to Trump via some sort of conspiracy among the lawyers or something?
Not a lawyer but you get months to investigate everything witnesses testify to and attack any small issue. That must be nice for the ones going second. Then they testify again and you get to attack differences.
1 Like
Yeah I mean it feels like they trying to do Trump a solid here which I assume would be grossly unethical for the lawyers to do lol
It is definitely extremely beneficial to not go first. That said, I’d still chalk this up to them being fucking morons and not part of some kind of coherent strategy.
2 Likes
What is even the punishment for this?
1 Like
I think it’s a mid 6 figure contract to be a regular guest on Fox News
2 Likes