The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#17,504
#17,504
From the article:

A legal argument was then held on whether the defense could call an "expert" Brad Smith to give his interpretations of legal terms that are the subject of the predicate offense for these charges. The DA objected since experts are permitted to give an opinion about the facts of the case based on their analysis but not on the law since it is the province of the jury to apply the law to the facts, not a witness.

Emil Bove argued that having their expert define those terms "is absolutely critical" to their defense. Judge Merchan ruled that Smith cannot testify since he will only be making legal conclusions. Andrew Giuliani, who has been attending the trial the last several sessions to give his "reporting" to right-wing outlets and social media, was not pleased with the ruling.

1716220780587.png

Loading…

meidasnews.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#17,506
#17,506
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley
·
50m
...Before the break, Cohen was forced to lay out how his income is now based almost entirely on attacking Trump ...

====================



 
Last edited:
#17,511
#17,511
LULZ, this is the star witness here folks

Michael Cohen ADMITS stealing $60,000 from Trump while dealing with Tiffany Trump photograph blackmail scheme as ex-president shakes his head in fury​

www.dailymail.co.uk

Donald Trump trial updates: Michael Cohen is back on the stand

The prosecution's 'star witness' Michael Cohen is back on the stand for a third day, as the court waits with bated breath to find out whether former President Donald Trump could testify himself.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and StarRaider
#17,512
#17,512
New York Penal Code §155, states that Grand Larceny may be applied if the stolen property is valued at over $1,000, or if the stolen property is a firearm, credit card, or vehicle, or if you steal from another person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and Orangeburst
#17,513
#17,513
CobbVol said:
From the article:

A legal argument was then held on whether the defense could call an "expert" Brad Smith to give his interpretations of legal terms that are the subject of the predicate offense for these charges. The DA objected since experts are permitted to give an opinion about the facts of the case based on their analysis but not on the law since it is the province of the jury to apply the law to the facts, not a witness.

Emil Bove argued that having their expert define those terms "is absolutely critical" to their defense. Judge Merchan ruled that Smith cannot testify since he will only be making legal conclusions. Andrew Giuliani, who has been attending the trial the last several sessions to give his "reporting" to right-wing outlets and social media, was not pleased with the ruling.

View attachment 641965

Loading…

meidasnews.com
Click to expand...


I deal with this issue all the time in federal court and the judge is correct to say that the expert cannot define the law, only he can. Its for the lawyers to argue what the statutes and rules mean. Would be plain error to allow the expert to testify on what the law is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BigOrangeMojo
#17,515
#17,515
The payment to Red Finch is the state's strongest argument for a felony...

If you have a felony, here it is (and yes, it's weak - I dont think you can prove intent)
 
#17,517
#17,517
lawgator1 said:
I deal with this issue all the time in federal court and the judge is correct to say that the expert cannot define the law, only he can. Its for the lawyers to argue what the statutes and rules mean. Would be plain error to allow the expert to testify on what the law is.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, there is an intent component to the law as well. The expert can't testify to intent because he's not in Trump's head...
 
#17,518
#17,518
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, davethevol, StarRaider and 1 other person
#17,519
#17,519
TheDirector said:
Has Hillary ever accepted the 2016 results? I believe she did a speaking tour after the election talking about how it was stolen. The Dems spent 4 years blaming it on Russia.
Click to expand...

Hail, part of what Humpty Dumpty Bragg is attempting to do is create the appearance that Trump should not have won in 2016.
 
#17,520
#17,520
SpaceCoastVol said:
Doesn't matter with a jury like they have. Should be a slam dunk acquittal, and the best outcome is a hung jury
Click to expand...

Hung Jury might be the best outcome for the Trump Critics. They can use propaganda about it during the entire election season. If he gets convicted, it risks going to an appellate court that could likely overturn it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
#17,521
#17,521
StarRaider said:
New York Penal Code §155, states that Grand Larceny may be applied if the stolen property is valued at over $1,000, or if the stolen property is a firearm, credit card, or vehicle, or if you steal from another person.
Click to expand...
A quadrillion VN dollars says he won't be prosecuted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737, GroverCleveland, whodeycin85 and 1 other person
#17,522
#17,522
TheDirector said:
Has Hillary ever accepted the 2016 results? I believe she did a speaking tour after the election talking about how it was stolen. The Dems spent 4 years blaming it on Russia.
Click to expand...
She never claimed before the election that it could be unfair. As has nearly every GOP-Trumpster to date.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top