Unless your OJ Simpson
I think OJ was innocent, wasn't he? [Runs for cover]
I absolutely don't live in the wilderness and we had a young black bear in my neighborhood early in the spring. My granddaughter sees them frequently at the summer camp she works for. They are dangerous but nowhere near as dangerous as brown bears (grizzly) who will chase you down and eat you.
Why is the goddess of justice kept blindfolded at court?
They know the pick up schedules better than I do.
I meant it more in the context of where you commit your crime, venue wise.
Commissioner of jurors sends out jury summonses randomly to eligible people from the community. They don't look at race, political leanings, etc. Totally random. It's up to the D.A. and defense counsel to select people they're comfortable with. Judges don't pick them. I admit I was surprised team trump only exercised 1 challenge.
Do you think juries hate repeat child molesters or rapists? Or even any criminal in general? They pledge to be fair and impartial and decide the case on the evidence alone. That's the backbone of our legal system. Juries take that oath pretty seriously.
Records that the Prosecution is obligated to exchange and is under their control. I believe the records were the federal prosecution of Cohen. The law can be complicated and I'm speaking in general terms. Surprises do happen. You just need to be prepared. The records were available to trump from day 1. There was nothing stopping him from getting them himself. It was a courtesy to give them time to review them. I think Braggs office needed the time to review them too. I think I mentioned that I had to testify the other day due to a late disclosure by the DA 2 days before trial. The had to disclose it as they had just received it that day and it was exculpatory for our client. They were no longer going to call the witness and were going to go forward on the basis of the 911 call and excited utterance. When I showed up for trial and they were informed I had already interviewed the witness and would be testifying, they dismissed the case. Attorneys generally list me as a witness in most cases just so the other side can't object when I'm needed.
She is no longer blindfolded. The courts/Prosecutors tailor the prosecution and the judge's rulings to whoever has been accused just as they do in banana republics and in Russia. Prosecutors get away with basing their election campaign on who they will prosecute and nobody cares because it isn't them that the prosecutor is promising to persecute.
What would have been the point?
Forgive me if I say so, but your analogy does not hold for a number of reasons. What you are talking about here is the crime being commited. It is not a crime to be a Republican. And before the trial, Trump had never been convicted of any crime.
Do you mean like in the OJ Simpson case?
Why did Bragg take 7 years to get them? The prosecutor is obliged to provide them in a timely manner. How does the defence know what records they should seek? I thought it was up to the prosecutor to select their evidence to be used. How does the defence know what records they need when the prosecutor refuses to tell them what the crime was?
You are comparing a charge that is common with one that is unique. And again, that is precisely the point: novel legal theories to indict a political opponent who is leading in the polls. They have to make something up to "Get Trump".
And the latest conviction still did not specify which "crime" he was convicted of. The judge even said that the prosecution did not prove any crime. So much for your Constitutional right to know what you are being charged with so you can defend yourself.
Context. You repeatedly say that the jurors hate trump. Your argument is based on that yet there is no indication it's true other than wishful thinking.
Depends on the facts. Prior bad acts are litigated in almost every case where the defendant has a record. In some instances it is a requirement such as OUI 3rd. To sustain that charge they must prove that the defendant was convicted at least twice before on the same charge and that it is the same person. There are often time limits on how far the reach back can go. It all revolves around the specific facts of the specific case.
It is. And they turn that over as required. They also turn over whatever exculpatory evidence they may have.
They are 3rd party records not under the possession or control of the DA. Team trump asked for them in January and they were then provided. Trump wanted them to impeach Cohen. I'm pretty sure they knew Cohen would be a witness from day 1. Why didn't they ask for them sooner? Just a guess but trump has a habit of trying to stall the inevitable and it was probably further efforts to try and stall the trial.
I'm sure there are boxes and boxes of pleadings between the DA and Defense that we have not seen, nor heard about, and probably never will. There is a standard pleading called a "Bill Of Particulars" -
We have to look at why the Republicans are not engaging in lawfare and correct it. Obama and Clinton need to be hauled in front of a kangaroo court and prosecuted for crimes not yet defined.
Now THAT is a question that isn't getting asked. The GOP gets to blame it on the DEMS and keep their skirts nice and clean...
Was your argument about a concern for an all white jury when a black man was on trial also wishful thinking? Where is your evidence there? I think a better and more accurate description is probabilistic thinking. In fact that is how the legal system works when getting a conviction, as you well know. It is not a question of being 100% certain, it is a question of probability. In this case, Manhatten is one of the strongest Democrat leaning areas in the country, with about 90% of them polling for the Dems. It is like being surrounded by Klan members and the black mans defence team has to pick the most moderate of them. The number of jurors in this case who said they cannot be unbiased was considerable.
I think you are conflating sentencing/litigation with what is revealed to the jury. They are two different things. Our debate was concerning jury bias depending on what they know prior to trial.
It is the obligation of the prosecution to provide those records in a timely manner. As you stated yourself, they cannot be used otherwise. If the Trump team could have got them years ago, then so could Bragg. It is prosecutorial misconduct if you don't give adequate time. You are wrongly putting the burden on the defence for obtaining records.
The "Stop Trump" judge Merchan denied in part Trump's motion for a Bill of Particulars. It seems New York law has its own perverse set of rules.
I've never been in court. The whole though of it terrifies me!
