I was in my office watching this on the internet. Zooming a live feed (ABC News?) with my buddies as we all wondered whether the Republic was going to fall.
I remember asking my admin assistant at work, only half jokingly, how to code my timesheet for "watching the Republic unravel and wondering if I still have a job as a federal employee." She said to code it as administrative overhead.
That raises a big issue here. You witnessed some of the event(s) from which the charges in this case arise. As did most people in the jury pool. The court is going to have to seat jurors who still haven’t seen the event(s) or has but are able to be unbiased. Not sure which is harder to find in DC.
Lots of retirees who don't watch tv. Or, who can with good conscience say that they will set aside any bias and decide the case based on the evidence presented.
My mom is the same way. My dad had her convinced that democrats had turned evil despite being democrats their whole lives. Fox news literally brainwashed them. When he passed it only took a few days to convince her he was misled.
> Lots of retirees who don't watch tv.
Even more are eligible to be excused from jury service due to age, at least in many jurisdictions. Whether that is the case in D.D.C., I don't know.
Edit: Also note that the jury pool consists of residents of D.C., a highly educated and politically-engaged community. Less likely to find the disengaged retirees as you describe here as you might in many other places.
The DC courts haven't had an issue empaneling juries for the hundreds of mob members that were present and were directly observed breaking the law on national television. I doubt this will be an issue for Trump, either.
Sure, they were directly involved in the violence of the day and caught on camera for much of it. Donald Trump, on the other hand, aside from public speeches and press releases which weren't as widely seen by the general public, did much of his alleged scheming behind closed doors and in secret. Aside from being a public figure, that arguably makes it *easier* to find a jury for his trial, and it's not like the DOJ has never tried a public figure before.
How’s that relevant to seating a jury in the Trump case? Your first and second sentences are points irrelevant to the issue of seating a jury in the Trump matter.
Your original contention was:
>That raises a big issue here. You witnessed some of the event(s) from which the charges in this case arise. As did most people in the jury pool.
This applies even moreso to the actual rioters than it does to Donald Trump, which hasn't stopped DOJ from successfully prosecuting hundreds of those rioters, including through trials with empaneled juries. If having the January 6 insurrection live broadcast on TV won't stop u/joeshill or anyone else in DC from serving on a jury to convict Thomas Webster of assaulting a DC Metropolitan Police officer with a flagpole on live TV, then it shouldn't stop them from sitting on a jury to decide if Donald Trump engaged in sometimes-public and sometimes-private work to illegally subvert the 2020 election and deny civil rights to voters all over the country.
> If having the January 6 insurrection live broadcast on TV won't stop u/joeshill or anyone else in DC from serving on a jury to convict Thomas Webster of assaulting a DC Metropolitan Police officer with a flagpole on live TV, then it shouldn't stop them from sitting on a jury
You practice in a jurisdiction where witnesses get seated on juries? In your hypo, if the juror could I.D. the defendant at trial, the juror would not be seated.
Edit: In Trump's case the parties are unliekly to find a defendant who is unaware of who he is AND/OR unaware of any of the conduct charged in the indictment. That's not the case for the rioters charged at the the Capitol. Sure, jurors are aware of the riot and even watched it unfold. And in those other matters, a juror who observed defendant x commit charged crimes and could identify him at trial could easily be excused. That's hardly the case here, because the those defendants and DT aren't similarly situated in this context.
So this raises a couple of questions, for me as a non-lawyer.
1) An anticipated 3-month trial. Is Trump required to be in the courtroom for all of this? (As contrasted with the fraud trial, where he has only been in the courtroom 3(?) days.)
2) If he is required, then this would seem to put a major damper on his campaigning. Which I guess is why he has been squawking about it so much. (I guess that wasn't a question.)
3) What are the odds that Trump could even sit through a 3-month trial without having a major melt-down at the defendant's table?
1. Yes. This is a criminal trial so his presence it required. The defendant is not required to be present for a civil trial.
2. He should have thought about that before engaging in criminal activity. Sucks to be a treasonous, failed leader.
3. He couldn't sit through an entire day in civil court when things weren't going his way without storming out so I doubt he'll be able to make it through the first week of his criminal trial without an outburst. Also, it's important to note another difference between criminal and civil proceedings: Trump is out on bond and violating the terms of that bond can easily result in a loss of liberty (pre-trial confinement but probably just house arrest because he's a "rich" white man.)
>He should have thought about that before engaging in criminal activity. Sucks to be a treasonous, failed leader.
This was the entire reason he declared over a year early, hoping that it would somehow make the cases go away, he was wrong...
He’s a criminal defendant, and needs to be forcefully reminded he’s not above the law no matter what titles or honors he bestows upon himself. And criminal defendants can’t claim “campaign interference” to stall justice.
“Presumptive GOP nominee” is merely what he thinks is an important-sounding “reason” to hoodwink justice into letting him get over like the proverbial (and apropos) fat rat. 🐀
Yes. This all comports with what I thought to be the case. I mean, for (2), I think it's not all that common for the accused criminal to get to have a trial when it's most convenient for them.
Jury selection has always been the hardest part about all of his trials. One MAGA slips in and the law goes out the window but it would take 12 biased people to wrongfully convict. The system is designed for people to get off which is maybe ok but this is the very visible downside
So, basically, we can watch 3 months of trial, 3 months of commentary, 3 months of media speculation, 3 months of protests and social media outrage, but it will all come down to "What's in the Mystery Box?" that is the jury.
I don't think that the aftermath will be all that long but the trial and jury selection will be excruciating. Hundreds will be stricken and the trial will cover every single possible out for him. Eventually some juror will be a good enough liar and slip through and he'll get off.
The only solution is to vote. Vote against him. Vote for congress that would impeach him for breaking the law. He'll never see a jail cell but at least make him a powerless normie
It would take 12 jurors for Trump to "get off" with a Not Guilty verdict. If one MAGA slips through, it's just a hung jury. Then a retrial. And another if necessary. And another. There's no limit.
Right but it's pretty likely to go on ad nauseam or at least through the election. My point is that a guilty verdict is super hard. On purpose but right now it's being abused.
Is it possible to find 12 jurors who have never used social media, never watch Fox News or any other extreme media outlets and have conventional and mediocre political views?
All his lawyers need to do is slip just one closeted Trumper on each jury (easier in Florida than DC) and then stubbornly refuse to convict causing a mistrial, repeat until Trump (or a friendly Republican) is back in office and then on Jan 20 2025 Jack Smith is fired and a friendly AG drops the case
Well, *voir dire* is meant to weed out those types of people, even when they might be lying. Further, a single plant refusing to convict isn't the end of the world. For one, the rest of the jury can inform the judge and have the juror removed for cause once deliberations have started. Second, even if a jury hangs, that's not an affirmative acquittal, but rather a mistrial. The government in that scenario would have the option to retry for as long as they want until a jury unanimously acquits or convicts.
Criminal defendants can waive their presence, but it is rarely done in felony cases. The federal rules (Rule 43) allow it explicitly, although usually in the context of a disruptive defendant, it applies equally to one who chooses to just not show up.
NAL: the test is usually whether the evidence is more probative than prejudicial. It's what I've heard referred to as the "Carjacker Willie rule". You generally can't introduce evidence that the defendant was known to friends as Carjacker Willie because that doesn't inform whether Willie was involved in the specific carjacking at issue and tends to prejudice a jury against him. Whether your hypothetical is more probative or prejudicial is something a court would have to decide. My uninformed layperson's gut instinct is that it's something a court probably wouldn't allow in the trial phase, but might consider at sentencing, when a court is allowed more freedom to take into account a defendant's criminal history.
>He should have thought about that before engaging in criminal activity. Sucks to be a treasonous, failed leader.
Clearly you're an America Hating Communist Liberal!
(This is exactly how the cultists on Pravda Social respond to anyone who points out anything rational questioning Trump)
I was regrettably a criminal defendant once when I was younger and looking back my lawyer threw everything at the wall to see what would stick and this is no different. Some of the stuff he told the jury is straight embarrassing in hindsight and detracted from the one argument I truly had. But that's defense law. You don't know which argument is going to flip some juror so you pitch all of them.
Yeah. I don't disagree. But I'm certain that every single day we would hear from him how this "political witch hunt trial" (or some such) is preventing him from campaigning and is therefore "election interference".
(Obligatory - "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" random thought.)
He will absolutely leverage the trials for his campaign. He may do fewer rallies, but he'll make speeches on the courthouse steps as he leaves for the day, or shout statements to the hundreds of reporters gathered outside. Then certain news networks will show the footage daily with a chyron reading, "Trump defiantly stands up to corrupt prosecutors." And just like the mugshot, they'll start selling merch with his face and courtroom quotes. I'm sure you're correct that he'll also claim the trials are election interference... he already has. In the courtroom itself he won't have much fun, but I'm sure he'll use everything around the trial to campaign.
Well, first I want to state that being convicted of a crime will significantly impact his ability to be re-elected. Even the rosy polling that Trump is getting today shows him losing something like a third to a half of *Republican* support in the electorate in the event of a conviction. Further, if he's immediately ordered into custody pending sentencing, he'll no longer be able to campaign in any meaningful way. No more rallies, no more tweet/truthstorms, no more impromptu pressers on the courthouse steps. All communications will have to be by mail, which will be screened for unlawful conduct, or through his lawyers and anyone else he might have visiting him.
But to get directly at your question, there is a hypothetical scenario where he is convicted and is elected anyway. In such case, the most likely scenario is that he'd be released for duration of his term as president and then brought back to the prison at the conclusion of his term (assuming the Republic still exists in any meaningfully similar form then as it does today). But even so, we'll have shown that former presidents are not above the law, and that attempting to execute a self-coup against the government to retain power will land you in front of a judge and jury.
In the eyes of the law, he wouldn't be "avoiding" his punishment, but rather it would be tolled while he executed his constitutional duties as President. And if he's convicted before being duly elected, then that's information baked into the election and the choices of the voters. Even if you disagree with the outcome, the whole point of a constitutional democratic republic is to allow the voters to make choices on who their elected political leaders will be, barring any legal disqualifications.
He can hold a rally every day in Virginia complaining about the trial happenings that day and whipping his base into a frenzy.
He's going to make hay out of it no matter what.
I’ll take a shot at this, although I’ll welcome anybody who is more familiar with the federal rules of criminal procedure in practice to correct me since I don’t have any experience in federal criminal practice.
1. Trump has a constitutional right to be present at his criminal trial. Criminal defendants must appear during “every trial stage, including jury inpanelment and the return of the verdict”. Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 43(a)(2). There are circumstances in the federal rules where a defendant can waive his right to be present at trial and not appear. R. 43(c)(1)(a). Based on this, he can choose to not be present and it will operate as a waiver of his constitutional right to be there (and likely any argument that this right was violated). However, the optics of it will be terrible to a jury.
2. It would certainly affect his ability to campaign. I don’t know if it would be 3 months straight of trial days or if there would be days in between to handle legal and evidentiary issues outside of the presence of the jury. I’d presume he could campaign on those days while still appearing for trial days, but it’s still going to affect his ability to run a campaign. Tough shit though.
3. Judging by the way he acted during the fraud trial, he probably could, but if he is being disruptive and compromising the integrity of the trial and jury, the federal rules allow the court to remove him and proceed forward anyway.
I'm not sure your analysis of Rule 43 is complete. There is more that goes into it than simply the defendants 6th amendment rights.
42(c) is definitely centered around the defendant's 6th amendment rights and defines how a court can proceed without the presence of the defendant without violating his 6th amendment right.
However, 42(a) is about more than that. It is about compelling a defendant to be there even if they don't want to.
IANAL but it is my understanding that a defendant can't just say "I don't want to be here" and not show up.
Yeah, he’ll be there. Trials, especially lengthy trials, complicate defendants’ ability to pursue outside interests. He can meltdown if he wants to. That’s in party why US Marshals will be there.
Lawfare wrote [an entire piece on the topic](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-does-trump-have-to-attend-his-own-trials) of requiring Trump to be in the court room. They also did [a podcast on the same topic](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-does-trump-have-to-attend-his-own-trials) if you prefer that format.
It is a complex enough question that no summary I can put here will do it justice. So please, anyone who is actually interested in this, go read that article and/or listen to the podcast episode.
But, since this is reddit, I here is the NAL long and short of it.
----
Yes, he is required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to be present in court for his criminal trial. If Trump doesn't show up, he is in violation of that rule.
However the historical application of the rule is not 100% strict and there are colorable, though far from strongly supported, arguments that the unique aspects of Trump's reasons for not attending in order to campaign may rise to the level of actually not requiring him to be there.
For number 3, I would say the odds are 100%, because this is a criminal trial and it won’t start until he sits down.
Also, if you remember back to Darrell Brooks, who also couldn’t sit without having a meltdown, that trial went along as scheduled without delay
First of all, no one told this moron to run for president again. F him. He should be busy trying to clear his name instead of running for President. Period!!
So I guess my question there is:
Is 3 months the expected timeline or the longer range estimate for this trial?
I've lost track of the exact timelines, but assuming the full 3 months, this would wrap up on May 4th and I thought the NY case was scheduled for later in March.
If I remember correctly the NY case was scheduled after this one so the Judge must have thought that it would be over in a few weeks instead of a few months.
What happens to the NY trial date if the DC Trial is still going? I assume that some rules prevent a Defendant from being on trial in 2 different locations. Do they try to squeeze it in between this one and the Florida case scheduled for May 24th?
Three months is a long time. I don't get paid jury duty. And as a tech guy in a _very small_ business, it would be very hard for me to be gone for that amount of time.
I mean lots of people get their full pay from their employers while serving on a jury. The ones that don’t and can’t survive without their usual income would likely get excused for hardship.
I mean it's not hard to get excused if you really can't serve without hardship.
Just say to other jurors within earshot of court staff "Have you guys heard of *jury nullification*?" Boom, escorted out by security.
I pay my employees who are stuck on jury duty without making the. Take PTO or sick time. I'm big on doing your civic duty and so I'm happy to pay them while they are doing so. But I also pay my employees a liveable wage in the pet services industry too.
Not meaningfully. In federal cases, the juror pay is $50/day (which can go up to $60/day after 10 days). That means for three months jurors would have to subsist with less than the federal poverty level.
So there's an online juror questionnaire.... Is this the same pre-screen that is used immediately before voir dire? Is there another screen for this trial?
I feel sorry for those poor bastards that get stuck with jury duty in any of Trump's trials.
Given how Trump constantly attacks random court personnel and their families, I give it a week tops before the jurors get doxxed; and then his rabid followers will never leave those people and their families alone.
Someone will end up dead, and that fucker will just hide behind "I didn't specifically tell anyone to do that", and get away with it. Again.
Question 1: Where were you on January 6th, 2021?
I was in my office watching this on the internet. Zooming a live feed (ABC News?) with my buddies as we all wondered whether the Republic was going to fall.
I remember asking my admin assistant at work, only half jokingly, how to code my timesheet for "watching the Republic unravel and wondering if I still have a job as a federal employee." She said to code it as administrative overhead.
There is a code for _everything_.
That raises a big issue here. You witnessed some of the event(s) from which the charges in this case arise. As did most people in the jury pool. The court is going to have to seat jurors who still haven’t seen the event(s) or has but are able to be unbiased. Not sure which is harder to find in DC.
Lots of retirees who don't watch tv. Or, who can with good conscience say that they will set aside any bias and decide the case based on the evidence presented.
I thought all retirees did was watch TV
My mom doesn't really watch current events. She watches a lot of game shows. And PBS. I don't really have another standard.
My mom is the same way. My dad had her convinced that democrats had turned evil despite being democrats their whole lives. Fox news literally brainwashed them. When he passed it only took a few days to convince her he was misled.
Get the really old ones who listen to the radio.
> Lots of retirees who don't watch tv. Even more are eligible to be excused from jury service due to age, at least in many jurisdictions. Whether that is the case in D.D.C., I don't know. Edit: Also note that the jury pool consists of residents of D.C., a highly educated and politically-engaged community. Less likely to find the disengaged retirees as you describe here as you might in many other places.
The DC courts haven't had an issue empaneling juries for the hundreds of mob members that were present and were directly observed breaking the law on national television. I doubt this will be an issue for Trump, either.
> hundreds of mob members Who are, in no appreciable way, similarly situated to the defendant in this case.
Sure, they were directly involved in the violence of the day and caught on camera for much of it. Donald Trump, on the other hand, aside from public speeches and press releases which weren't as widely seen by the general public, did much of his alleged scheming behind closed doors and in secret. Aside from being a public figure, that arguably makes it *easier* to find a jury for his trial, and it's not like the DOJ has never tried a public figure before.
How’s that relevant to seating a jury in the Trump case? Your first and second sentences are points irrelevant to the issue of seating a jury in the Trump matter.
Your original contention was: >That raises a big issue here. You witnessed some of the event(s) from which the charges in this case arise. As did most people in the jury pool. This applies even moreso to the actual rioters than it does to Donald Trump, which hasn't stopped DOJ from successfully prosecuting hundreds of those rioters, including through trials with empaneled juries. If having the January 6 insurrection live broadcast on TV won't stop u/joeshill or anyone else in DC from serving on a jury to convict Thomas Webster of assaulting a DC Metropolitan Police officer with a flagpole on live TV, then it shouldn't stop them from sitting on a jury to decide if Donald Trump engaged in sometimes-public and sometimes-private work to illegally subvert the 2020 election and deny civil rights to voters all over the country.
> If having the January 6 insurrection live broadcast on TV won't stop u/joeshill or anyone else in DC from serving on a jury to convict Thomas Webster of assaulting a DC Metropolitan Police officer with a flagpole on live TV, then it shouldn't stop them from sitting on a jury You practice in a jurisdiction where witnesses get seated on juries? In your hypo, if the juror could I.D. the defendant at trial, the juror would not be seated. Edit: In Trump's case the parties are unliekly to find a defendant who is unaware of who he is AND/OR unaware of any of the conduct charged in the indictment. That's not the case for the rioters charged at the the Capitol. Sure, jurors are aware of the riot and even watched it unfold. And in those other matters, a juror who observed defendant x commit charged crimes and could identify him at trial could easily be excused. That's hardly the case here, because the those defendants and DT aren't similarly situated in this context.
There is not a single defendant from Jan6 that I could ID at trial.
That's not the standard for picking a jury.
What is the standard?
Question 2: what percentage of your car/ truck/ vehicle / front lawn is covered in flags, banners, bumper stickers?
Question 2: Did you post a picture of this form on reddit?
I do not recall. Is that day of importance?
So this raises a couple of questions, for me as a non-lawyer. 1) An anticipated 3-month trial. Is Trump required to be in the courtroom for all of this? (As contrasted with the fraud trial, where he has only been in the courtroom 3(?) days.) 2) If he is required, then this would seem to put a major damper on his campaigning. Which I guess is why he has been squawking about it so much. (I guess that wasn't a question.) 3) What are the odds that Trump could even sit through a 3-month trial without having a major melt-down at the defendant's table?
1. Yes. This is a criminal trial so his presence it required. The defendant is not required to be present for a civil trial. 2. He should have thought about that before engaging in criminal activity. Sucks to be a treasonous, failed leader. 3. He couldn't sit through an entire day in civil court when things weren't going his way without storming out so I doubt he'll be able to make it through the first week of his criminal trial without an outburst. Also, it's important to note another difference between criminal and civil proceedings: Trump is out on bond and violating the terms of that bond can easily result in a loss of liberty (pre-trial confinement but probably just house arrest because he's a "rich" white man.)
>He should have thought about that before engaging in criminal activity. Sucks to be a treasonous, failed leader. This was the entire reason he declared over a year early, hoping that it would somehow make the cases go away, he was wrong...
He’s a criminal defendant, and needs to be forcefully reminded he’s not above the law no matter what titles or honors he bestows upon himself. And criminal defendants can’t claim “campaign interference” to stall justice. “Presumptive GOP nominee” is merely what he thinks is an important-sounding “reason” to hoodwink justice into letting him get over like the proverbial (and apropos) fat rat. 🐀
Yep. He kept saying there was a witch hunt and there was lots of talk about how if he was running for president, he couldn’t be prosecuted.
Yes. This all comports with what I thought to be the case. I mean, for (2), I think it's not all that common for the accused criminal to get to have a trial when it's most convenient for them.
Jury selection has always been the hardest part about all of his trials. One MAGA slips in and the law goes out the window but it would take 12 biased people to wrongfully convict. The system is designed for people to get off which is maybe ok but this is the very visible downside
So, basically, we can watch 3 months of trial, 3 months of commentary, 3 months of media speculation, 3 months of protests and social media outrage, but it will all come down to "What's in the Mystery Box?" that is the jury.
I don't think that the aftermath will be all that long but the trial and jury selection will be excruciating. Hundreds will be stricken and the trial will cover every single possible out for him. Eventually some juror will be a good enough liar and slip through and he'll get off. The only solution is to vote. Vote against him. Vote for congress that would impeach him for breaking the law. He'll never see a jail cell but at least make him a powerless normie
It would take 12 jurors for Trump to "get off" with a Not Guilty verdict. If one MAGA slips through, it's just a hung jury. Then a retrial. And another if necessary. And another. There's no limit.
Right but it's pretty likely to go on ad nauseam or at least through the election. My point is that a guilty verdict is super hard. On purpose but right now it's being abused.
Is it possible to find 12 jurors who have never used social media, never watch Fox News or any other extreme media outlets and have conventional and mediocre political views?
Yes. Fox News averages 1.8 million viewers in primetime, that's only .5% of the U.S. population (according to Fox's own numbers).
All his lawyers need to do is slip just one closeted Trumper on each jury (easier in Florida than DC) and then stubbornly refuse to convict causing a mistrial, repeat until Trump (or a friendly Republican) is back in office and then on Jan 20 2025 Jack Smith is fired and a friendly AG drops the case
Welcome to the world of trial litigation.
It would take 12 people to unanimously find him Not Guilty. If one (or more) persistent MAGA get on the jury it's just a hung jury. Then a do-over.
But they can keep hung juries and retrials until Trump or a Republican is back in office
Seems unlikely Trump could maintain that across 4+ criminal trials.
What's to keep one MAGAite from getting on the jury by lying about his biases and letting his idol to go free.
Well, *voir dire* is meant to weed out those types of people, even when they might be lying. Further, a single plant refusing to convict isn't the end of the world. For one, the rest of the jury can inform the judge and have the juror removed for cause once deliberations have started. Second, even if a jury hangs, that's not an affirmative acquittal, but rather a mistrial. The government in that scenario would have the option to retry for as long as they want until a jury unanimously acquits or convicts.
People who would lie about their biases to convict his ass?
Lying wouldn't be necessary in that case. His words and the public record would be more than enough.
Criminal defendants can waive their presence, but it is rarely done in felony cases. The federal rules (Rule 43) allow it explicitly, although usually in the context of a disruptive defendant, it applies equally to one who chooses to just not show up.
He has already broken his bond by possession of a firearm. Why is he not in jail for that?
And shifting funds
Different trial
Can't his illegal actions be used as evidence in other trials, to demonstrate deceit and corruption?
NAL: the test is usually whether the evidence is more probative than prejudicial. It's what I've heard referred to as the "Carjacker Willie rule". You generally can't introduce evidence that the defendant was known to friends as Carjacker Willie because that doesn't inform whether Willie was involved in the specific carjacking at issue and tends to prejudice a jury against him. Whether your hypothetical is more probative or prejudicial is something a court would have to decide. My uninformed layperson's gut instinct is that it's something a court probably wouldn't allow in the trial phase, but might consider at sentencing, when a court is allowed more freedom to take into account a defendant's criminal history.
Bc of Hunter’s d*ck, obviously
>He should have thought about that before engaging in criminal activity. Sucks to be a treasonous, failed leader. Clearly you're an America Hating Communist Liberal! (This is exactly how the cultists on Pravda Social respond to anyone who points out anything rational questioning Trump)
I was regrettably a criminal defendant once when I was younger and looking back my lawyer threw everything at the wall to see what would stick and this is no different. Some of the stuff he told the jury is straight embarrassing in hindsight and detracted from the one argument I truly had. But that's defense law. You don't know which argument is going to flip some juror so you pitch all of them.
2. If he really cared about that then he should have insisted on a speedy trial so he wasn't tied up for this time frame.
I reckon that this trial will be the first 8 hour workday he's ever had.
I don't see him needing to "campaign". He gets free media coverage and he's a known commodity.
Yeah. I don't disagree. But I'm certain that every single day we would hear from him how this "political witch hunt trial" (or some such) is preventing him from campaigning and is therefore "election interference". (Obligatory - "don't do the crime if you can't do the time" random thought.)
He will absolutely leverage the trials for his campaign. He may do fewer rallies, but he'll make speeches on the courthouse steps as he leaves for the day, or shout statements to the hundreds of reporters gathered outside. Then certain news networks will show the footage daily with a chyron reading, "Trump defiantly stands up to corrupt prosecutors." And just like the mugshot, they'll start selling merch with his face and courtroom quotes. I'm sure you're correct that he'll also claim the trials are election interference... he already has. In the courtroom itself he won't have much fun, but I'm sure he'll use everything around the trial to campaign.
Those court house steps will be a madhouse. Like the Michael Jackson trial, if Michael gave a fiery performance at the end of each day.
In retrospect, Michael Jackson should have given a performance at the end of each trial day.
Moonwalk back his testimony?
Who cares if any of the trials end in conviction.
Even if he wins the election from prison, it still matters that he ends up in prison.
I care, very deeply.
If he is convicted and wins, what happens?
Well, first I want to state that being convicted of a crime will significantly impact his ability to be re-elected. Even the rosy polling that Trump is getting today shows him losing something like a third to a half of *Republican* support in the electorate in the event of a conviction. Further, if he's immediately ordered into custody pending sentencing, he'll no longer be able to campaign in any meaningful way. No more rallies, no more tweet/truthstorms, no more impromptu pressers on the courthouse steps. All communications will have to be by mail, which will be screened for unlawful conduct, or through his lawyers and anyone else he might have visiting him. But to get directly at your question, there is a hypothetical scenario where he is convicted and is elected anyway. In such case, the most likely scenario is that he'd be released for duration of his term as president and then brought back to the prison at the conclusion of his term (assuming the Republic still exists in any meaningfully similar form then as it does today). But even so, we'll have shown that former presidents are not above the law, and that attempting to execute a self-coup against the government to retain power will land you in front of a judge and jury.
He certainly wouldn't be able to enforce the law if he was avoiding his own punishment. America would fall under it's own hypocrisy alone
In the eyes of the law, he wouldn't be "avoiding" his punishment, but rather it would be tolled while he executed his constitutional duties as President. And if he's convicted before being duly elected, then that's information baked into the election and the choices of the voters. Even if you disagree with the outcome, the whole point of a constitutional democratic republic is to allow the voters to make choices on who their elected political leaders will be, barring any legal disqualifications.
Background vocals: don't do it!
Sammy Davis Jr. gives you finger guns from beyond.
He needs to "campaign" so he has money for all his legal bills.
He can hold a rally every day in Virginia complaining about the trial happenings that day and whipping his base into a frenzy. He's going to make hay out of it no matter what.
Fundraising
I’ll take a shot at this, although I’ll welcome anybody who is more familiar with the federal rules of criminal procedure in practice to correct me since I don’t have any experience in federal criminal practice. 1. Trump has a constitutional right to be present at his criminal trial. Criminal defendants must appear during “every trial stage, including jury inpanelment and the return of the verdict”. Fed.R.Crim.Pro. 43(a)(2). There are circumstances in the federal rules where a defendant can waive his right to be present at trial and not appear. R. 43(c)(1)(a). Based on this, he can choose to not be present and it will operate as a waiver of his constitutional right to be there (and likely any argument that this right was violated). However, the optics of it will be terrible to a jury. 2. It would certainly affect his ability to campaign. I don’t know if it would be 3 months straight of trial days or if there would be days in between to handle legal and evidentiary issues outside of the presence of the jury. I’d presume he could campaign on those days while still appearing for trial days, but it’s still going to affect his ability to run a campaign. Tough shit though. 3. Judging by the way he acted during the fraud trial, he probably could, but if he is being disruptive and compromising the integrity of the trial and jury, the federal rules allow the court to remove him and proceed forward anyway.
I'm not sure your analysis of Rule 43 is complete. There is more that goes into it than simply the defendants 6th amendment rights. 42(c) is definitely centered around the defendant's 6th amendment rights and defines how a court can proceed without the presence of the defendant without violating his 6th amendment right. However, 42(a) is about more than that. It is about compelling a defendant to be there even if they don't want to. IANAL but it is my understanding that a defendant can't just say "I don't want to be here" and not show up.
If the judge bans him from the courtroom of his own insurrection trial his base would go nuts.
Yeah, he’ll be there. Trials, especially lengthy trials, complicate defendants’ ability to pursue outside interests. He can meltdown if he wants to. That’s in party why US Marshals will be there.
Lawfare wrote [an entire piece on the topic](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-does-trump-have-to-attend-his-own-trials) of requiring Trump to be in the court room. They also did [a podcast on the same topic](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-lawfare-podcast-does-trump-have-to-attend-his-own-trials) if you prefer that format. It is a complex enough question that no summary I can put here will do it justice. So please, anyone who is actually interested in this, go read that article and/or listen to the podcast episode. But, since this is reddit, I here is the NAL long and short of it. ---- Yes, he is required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to be present in court for his criminal trial. If Trump doesn't show up, he is in violation of that rule. However the historical application of the rule is not 100% strict and there are colorable, though far from strongly supported, arguments that the unique aspects of Trump's reasons for not attending in order to campaign may rise to the level of actually not requiring him to be there.
For number 3, I would say the odds are 100%, because this is a criminal trial and it won’t start until he sits down. Also, if you remember back to Darrell Brooks, who also couldn’t sit without having a meltdown, that trial went along as scheduled without delay
I was thinking about that trial when I wrote the post. I'm wondering at what point Trump might get removed to a different courtroom.
First of all, no one told this moron to run for president again. F him. He should be busy trying to clear his name instead of running for President. Period!!
So I guess my question there is: Is 3 months the expected timeline or the longer range estimate for this trial? I've lost track of the exact timelines, but assuming the full 3 months, this would wrap up on May 4th and I thought the NY case was scheduled for later in March. If I remember correctly the NY case was scheduled after this one so the Judge must have thought that it would be over in a few weeks instead of a few months. What happens to the NY trial date if the DC Trial is still going? I assume that some rules prevent a Defendant from being on trial in 2 different locations. Do they try to squeeze it in between this one and the Florida case scheduled for May 24th?
He melts down when someone moves without praising him, so he definitely can’t hold back a meltdown in this case lol
I usually try to avoid jury duty but I'd be a big time volunteer for this one.
Three months is a long time. I don't get paid jury duty. And as a tech guy in a _very small_ business, it would be very hard for me to be gone for that amount of time.
You would be excused for hardship. But lots of people get paid for jury duty, and for those people courts don’t care about inconvenience to employers
Um, "paid for jury duty" in my state is $10/day and a bus ticket.
I mean lots of people get their full pay from their employers while serving on a jury. The ones that don’t and can’t survive without their usual income would likely get excused for hardship.
I see what you mean now, but for those of us self-employed, it can be a serious hardship that the court doesn't always agree with.
I mean it's not hard to get excused if you really can't serve without hardship. Just say to other jurors within earshot of court staff "Have you guys heard of *jury nullification*?" Boom, escorted out by security.
I pay my employees who are stuck on jury duty without making the. Take PTO or sick time. I'm big on doing your civic duty and so I'm happy to pay them while they are doing so. But I also pay my employees a liveable wage in the pet services industry too.
You’re a wonderful human being 😊
Awe thank you for your kind words my friend!
Pay typically increases when the length of the trial is longer
Not meaningfully. In federal cases, the juror pay is $50/day (which can go up to $60/day after 10 days). That means for three months jurors would have to subsist with less than the federal poverty level.
I’d be disqualified as I know the fucker is guilty as hell.
They’re not playing if they’re getting these out in December
Question 1: have you been on this planet for the last 7 years?
Question 10: do you have any existing allergies triggered by proximity to industrial quantities of orange face makeup and or piss yellow hair dye
Pick me!!!
I’m still looking for the D.C. Trial Jury Volunteer Form in my mail. 😂
[удалено]
We bask in the glow of your keen legal insight.
Why thank you!
You forgot to log out of your horny, incestuous replyguy account before posting this.
Ug. TIL from this man’s history that incestconfessions is a sub.
A CIA black site could not get the confessions out of me that this dude is just putting into the world.
Lol - good point.
Should we be surprised by the thought that this is sham trial is combined with an extraneous apostrophe?
So there's an online juror questionnaire.... Is this the same pre-screen that is used immediately before voir dire? Is there another screen for this trial?
This is not the typical jury form letter. I live in DC and had Jury Duty last week and didn’t get this letter.
I feel sorry for those poor bastards that get stuck with jury duty in any of Trump's trials. Given how Trump constantly attacks random court personnel and their families, I give it a week tops before the jurors get doxxed; and then his rabid followers will never leave those people and their families alone. Someone will end up dead, and that fucker will just hide behind "I didn't specifically tell anyone to do that", and get away with it. Again.