The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#17,204
#17,204
whodeycin85 said:
What the crime that turns this out of SOL case I to a felony??
Click to expand...

No one actually seems to know. I have never heard of prosecuting a crime that isnt actually in the indictment. They are now in the middle of the trial and nobody who has been asked has been able to get a definitive answer. All the pundits are guessing election finance violations, either fed or state - but they all freely admit they are guessing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#17,205
#17,205
lawgator1 said:
There are limits to that when the client asks the attorney to engage in criminal behavior.

Which is what happened here.


Not saying it's okay, just saying it's not as absolute as you might think. Fact is, Cohen should have turned him down at the time. He didn't and that's on him. But it doesn't make what Trump did okay, either.
Click to expand...

Attorney-Client privilege is pretty strict unless the law changed recently. Your clients can basically confess to past crimes and you are not supposed to bring it up. The exception is if they plan to commit a crime in the present or future. You then have a duty to stop being their attorney and report.

Also making videos of a client risks your professional and is arguable a mistrial on the Attorney because you effectively are created evidence that can be leaked. It is negligent on the Attorney and could lead to an Inadequate Counsel Defense. I won't have much time to respond today so don't think I am ignoring but these actions are very alarming.
 
#17,206
#17,206
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
😂😂😂😂

Click to expand...

It appears that Trump relied on those two as well. Pot calling kettle black? This is how jammed up the media and commentators are in today's tribal world.
Had Trump not hired either one of these idiots I would not have known who they were or what they did for a living.
So much spin. Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen are household names because of Trump's antics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lostsheep
#17,207
#17,207
volbound1700 said:
Attorney-Client privilege is pretty strict unless the law changed recently. Your clients can basically confess to past crimes and you are not supposed to bring it up. The exception is if they plan to commit a crime in the present or future. You then have a duty to stop being their attorney and report.

Also making videos of a client risks your professional and is arguable a mistrial on the Attorney because you effectively are created evidence that can be leaked. It is negligent on the Attorney and could lead to an Inadequate Counsel Defense. I won't have much time to respond today so don't think I am ignoring but these actions are very alarming.
Click to expand...


That's what I'm saying. Cohen should not have participated in Trump's crimes as they occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#17,214
#17,214
volbound1700 said:
Attorney-Client privilege is pretty strict unless the law changed recently. Your clients can basically confess to past crimes and you are not supposed to bring it up. The exception is if they plan to commit a crime in the present or future. You then have a duty to stop being their attorney and report.

Also making videos of a client risks your professional and is arguable a mistrial on the Attorney because you effectively are created evidence that can be leaked. It is negligent on the Attorney and could lead to an Inadequate Counsel Defense. I won't have much time to respond today so don't think I am ignoring but these actions are very alarming.
Click to expand...
This is almost entirely untrue because it is too generalized. It may be true in some places, but not all.

The “law of attorney client privilege” isn’t actually the same across every state. Each state has its own code of professional conduct. Those rules contain many of the same features, but are interpreted to create bright line rules, so small differences in language can create different outcomes.

Tennessee, for example, prohibits disclosure of confidential information except with consent, when necessary to carry out the representation, or when subject to one of two categories of exceptions: the first being situations where the lawyer may breach confidences (basically boils down to preventing a crime/fraud, rectifying or preventing financial injury as a result of crime/fraud that was committed using the lawyer, defending the lawyer against the client, securing advice from another attorney, and uncovering conflicts of interest); then there are situations where a lawyer shall/must disclose confidential information (preventing bodily injury, complying with court orders, and complying with other laws or rules).

(Rule 1.6 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION, Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 1.6 | Casetext Search + Citator)

So Tennessee would be an exception to the claim that you must withdraw and report a client’s plan to “commit a crime in the present or future,” although it may very well be true in some places, perhaps even a majority. Some places may not allow lawyers to withdraw and report, but I doubt many, if any, of those exist.

Similarly, it is not impossible that another state like Florida or New York has a rule against creating audio or video recordings of the client that is intended for the lawyer’s own use, but it’s not some universal truism of ACP law. As far as I’m aware, Tennessee rules of professional conduct do not cover this. I’d be more inclined to believe it is universally wrong. In some states, like Florida, it could violate the two party consent law, but I assume this is easily remedied in the retainer contract by including a clause that consents to recording of conversations at the lawyer’s discretion.

Also, I’m not sure what
risks your professional and is arguable a mistrial on the Attorney because you effectively are created evidence that can be leaked
Click to expand...
means. I think there are some typos in there. But the claim that an attorney would be disbarred for revealing confidential information not subject to an exception is also generally incorrect. Violating ACP is likely to result in discipline and disbarment could occur under certain egregious circumstances.

The idea that creating a record of a client interaction is not allowed because it is an act of negligence is the only one that isn’t remotely true. I create memos to the file of every client documenting every conversation. Failing to take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of those records would be negligent, but the act of creating the memos or recordings is not negligence. (See part D of the Tennessee rule saying, in effect, that you have to make reasonable efforts to safeguard confidential information but says nothing about not creating records.) Honestly, not creating records and documenting everything is more negligent than doing so.

Re: mistrial and ineffective assistance of counsel: The other side turning up with lost memos or recordings in trial would be damaging to the attorney’s reputation and could possibly result in discipline depending on the circumstances, but knowingly using inadvertently disclosed confidential material is usually not permitted for the recipient. In that situation, a judge is going to weigh the circumstances and use the same toolbox of remedies, like jury instructions and suppression of tainted evidence that they use in other situations to avoid a mistrial (mistrials are disfavored.) Those remedies would almost certainly thwart an ineffective assistance claim, which is approaching the realm of legal fiction under modern jurisprudence.

Cohen, was disbarred for felony convictions. A good way to get your license revoked in many states. Mishandling client funds or property is probably the infraction that is most likely to get a lawyer disbarred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, BigOrangeMojo and McDad
#17,216
#17,216
I guess this is important antecedent information:

The essence of a privilege is that a party may object to certain communications being used against them, in some official proceeding, like a trial.

There are actually a number of them. Most places, you have a limited privilege over communications with your spouse, your priest, maybe your doctor or shrink, definitely your attorney. These are all situations where some public policy favors an expectation of privacy of communication.

None of these privileges is unlimited. They all have limits and, generally, conspiring to commit a crime is one of those limits. The limits on trial are probably defined in the rules of evidence for that jurisdiction.

Insofar as the attorney-client privilege goes, if opposing counsel were to come up with a recording of you and your lawyer having a private conversation, you still hold a privilege that prevents that from being used against you, assuming the conversation is within the bounds of the privilege.

The ACP itself has nothing to do with whether the lawyer records your conversations.

Outside of trial, unlike your spouse, there exists a special set of rules governing your lawyer. These rules create duties and responsibilities for the lawyer and one of them is a duty of confidentiality to prevent him from blabbing your business all over town. This professional obligation is sometimes colloquially called the attorney client privilege, but it’s actually a different professional responsibility to maintain confidentiality. In TN that’s Supreme Court Rule 8, section 1.6 otherwise known as Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.6. Unless one of those rules, some other law or rule, or a court ruling, prohibits the attorney from making a recording of their conversations, it’s probably permitted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, McDad and BigOrangeMojo
#17,217
#17,217
Gandalf said:
No one actually seems to know. I have never heard of prosecuting a crime that isnt actually in the indictment. They are now in the middle of the trial and nobody who has been asked has been able to get a definitive answer. All the pundits are guessing election finance violations, either fed or state - but they all freely admit they are guessing.
Click to expand...
You don’t need a crime for a show trial. Are you an idiot?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#17,219
#17,219
Here's what you all seem to be conflating.

1) Trump is alleged to have committed a crime in the making of this payment.

2) Cohen acted unethically and maybe even unlawfully by disclosing what Trump did.

Cohen has been punished for his transgressions. The fact that he committed them does not erase what Trump did. That Cohen disclosed it and shouldn't have doesn't mean it didn't happen. That Cohen disclosed it and shouldn't have does not authorize Trump to have done what he did, it does not give him a free pass to commit crime.

So if Trump committed a crime, regardless of what Cohen did wrongfully, Trump should be held accountable.
 
#17,221
#17,221
lawgator1 said:
Here's what you all seem to be conflating.

1) Trump is alleged to have committed a crime in the making of this payment.

2) Cohen acted unethically and maybe even unlawfully by disclosing what Trump did.

Cohen has been punished for his transgressions. The fact that he committed them does not erase what Trump did. That Cohen disclosed it and shouldn't have doesn't mean it didn't happen. That Cohen disclosed it and shouldn't have does not authorize Trump to have done what he did, it does not give him a free pass to commit crime.

So if Trump committed a crime, regardless of what Cohen did wrongfully, Trump should be held accountable.
Click to expand...

But what crime would he have committed just by making the payment?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, davethevol, SpaceCoastVol and 1 other person
#17,222
#17,222
lawgator1 said:
Here's what you all seem to be conflating.

1) Trump is alleged to have committed a crime in the making of this payment.

2) Cohen acted unethically and maybe even unlawfully by disclosing what Trump did.

Cohen has been punished for his transgressions. The fact that he committed them does not erase what Trump did. That Cohen disclosed it and shouldn't have doesn't mean it didn't happen. That Cohen disclosed it and shouldn't have does not authorize Trump to have done what he did, it does not give him a free pass to commit crime.

So if Trump committed a crime, regardless of what Cohen did wrongfully, Trump should be held accountable.
Click to expand...
Alleged? You keep saying he has committed these crimes. I thought they were just looking for an open date for the hanging
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and LibertyVol
#17,225
#17,225
LibertyVol said:
You don’t need a crime for a show trial. Are you an idiot?
Click to expand...
Well, this is less of a show trial than an attempt at a struggle session but the defendant is clearly uncowed and the crowds are not persuaded as to the righteous cause of Bragg's election interference.

And yes, it would seem by your ad hominem that you and I both are part idiot savant. You being one part and I the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top