172
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Apr 2024
172 points (96.2% liked)
News
23296 readers
3320 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She's decided to get to the stage with a jury, attach jeopardy, and then immediately dismiss the case on BS grounds. Because jeopardy was attached (the case was tried, even if in a perfunctory and illegitimate manner), then you can't charge the defendant with the same crime again. This way, she can essentially discharge the crimes permanently.
That does mean she needs to actually get to the trial stage of things. It also means she can use the trial scheduling to keep tripping up the other trials for his crimes in other jurisdictions as she moves her trial dates around to block progress by other judges. She's actively trying to undermine the judiciary, the rule of law, and protect an enemy of the republic.
Her response is nonsensical unless what you say is the case. She first says, hypothetically if we were to go with either of these both flagrantly incorrect interpretations of this law to say automatically that everything Trump did is legal to make jury instructions for the jury, how would you write them?
Smith replies, hold up, are you saying you're going with that totally ridiculous law interpretation? These are both very wrong and would mean no matter what the charges get dismissed for Trump, why would we make jury instructions based on them? If this is your interpretation, say so definitively in a ruling, so we can appeal right now before the trial.
She responds, I will not rule on this issue pre-trial (implying hey I might dismiss it the second the trial starts when this is unappealable because it would trigger double jeopardy, lol), and it was just hypothetical who knows, how dare you suggest we finalize jury instructions early this instant! (even though Smith never asked to finalize jury instructions, she was the one who asked them to write hypothetical jury instructions early hinting at her insane interpretations in the first place!) She even called the case a "first impression" which is ridiculous, the law has been around since the 1920's and has a ton of precedent.
Hopefully Smith has enough to file to just remove her from the case at this point. Yes this delays the trial, and yes the appeals court might say no, but at least it might stop her from deliberately setting her calendar for the trial this Summer to try and delay his other criminal cases too, especially the January 6th case (assuming Supreme court doesn't give Trump immunity or something equally dumb). She should be impeached and removed from the bench, for being unqualified in the first place, making flagrant dumb mistakes in multiple cases showing her lack of any ability to do this, and actual clear malice in using her position for political ends to boot.
This can just get appealed, right? I mean obviously the clock is on Trump's side, but a judge can't just magically wave away crimes on double Jeopardy like this, can they?
If a judge acquits the defendant during a trial before a jury has rendered a verdict, yeah they kind of can de facto wave crimes away if they really want to. Trial judges are important too, not just appeals judges. Another reason why republicans pushing through all of these unqualified judges is so devastating.
https://www.justia.com/criminal/procedure/judgments-of-acquittal/
She's hinting that she's going to make up some totally incorrect interpretation of the presidential records act (made to prevent presidents from taking materials that belong to the government, not shield them from stealing classified records), say under my interpretation no reasonable jury could convict him based on the evidence, and then acquit him before a jury renders any verdict, essentially not appealable to the best of my knowledge as long as it's done before a verdict, but correct me if I'm wrong. If she dismissed on this basis before the trial it would be appealable, or if she overturned a jury guilty verdict that would be appealable. This ruling she issued just said she would not dismiss the charges on this basis before the trial, but she's not ruling out going with that interpretation anyway during the actual trial, and her bizarre hypothetical jury instructions order telegraphs this is her intent.
Yup. SCOTUS never really contemplated a completely corrupt judge just jumping on a grenade for her lumpy overlord. Her career under any Democratic president (and possibly several Republican ones) would be over, but she can totally let him off the hook. The circuit has been halfway sensible so far, and Smith needs to accept that he's fighting two opponents who are not even playing the same game as he is, and he needs to pivot to getting rid of her, however long that takes.
I'm not a specialist, nor lawyer. The discussion I've heard so far is that if the judge dismissed the case after the jury is empaneled, but before much (or any) evidence has been presented, then it limits what can be appealed. Appeals can only be done on the case as it was run, not with new evidence, so if she ends it before the prosecution can enter evidence and arguments, then the appeal process might not have much to appeal.
Whether that strategy would actually work to protect the defendant, I don't know, but it's currently a scenario being floated by some commentators (who actually are lawyers) watching the case.