Seems to me the prosecution made an error in some of their questioning of >Stormy Daniels. The case isn't about whether Trump had sex with Daniels. ...
1) Can Trump use an argument of ineffective counsel in making an appeal
that his defense lawyer was essentially incompetent? Or is this type of >appeal pretty much denied to someone with Trump's resources who can >theoretically afford whatever lawyer he wants
2) Is it possible Trump's lawyer was actually more crafty than incompetent >and deliberately let the questions be answered knowing it could form the >basis for an appeal?
3) In general, how much leeway will a judge give when hearing what he or
she knows is an inflammatory or inappropriate question that the defense >should object to but does not?
Seems to me the prosecution made an error in some of their questioning
of Stormy Daniels. The case isn't about whether Trump had sex with
Daniels. It is about whether Trump falsified books to generate a payment
to Daniels, thus also violating campaign finance laws, to keep her quiet about her allegation of having sex with Trump. Whether or not she
actually had sex with Trump is actually irrelevant. Accordingly, asking Daniels whether Trump used a condom and whether the sex was "fast" seem
not only irrelevant, but inflammatory.
The defense asked for a mistrial on this point. Prosecution claimed the questions were appropriate because the defense denied in their opening statement that Trump had had sex with Daniels. Defense claimed the questions went beyond just eliciting whether they had sex and got into salacious details designed to prejudice the jury. Judge had an interesting response. He agreed the questions went too far but pointed
out that the defense could have objected but did not.
This brings up three questions to me:
1) Can Trump use an argument of ineffective counsel in making an appeal that his defense lawyer was essentially incompetent? Or is this type of appeal pretty much denied to someone with Trump's resources who can theoretically afford whatever lawyer he wants
2) Is it possible Trump's lawyer was actually more crafty than
incompetent and deliberately let the questions be answered knowing it
could form the basis for an appeal?
3) In general, how much leeway will a judge give when hearing what he
or she knows is an inflammatory or inappropriate question that the
defense should object to but does not?
I presume if he's convicted, appeals will be filed soon after. He's an
old fat man so if he dies before the appeals are decided, do they still
get decided, or are they dropped? This is a quaestion about NY,
Georgia, and federal courts.
On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:46:15 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:
I presume if he's convicted, appeals will be filed soon after. He's an
old fat man so if he dies before the appeals are decided, do they still
get decided, or are they dropped? This is a quaestion about NY,
Georgia, and federal courts.
It'd be dropped. This is a criminal case, not a civil one, so there's
no plaintiff to get money out of this one. A dead defendant, even if
their conviction is upheld on appeal, can't serve a jail sentence,
perform mandated community service, etc. The appeal would be declared
moot, and that would be the end of it.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 339 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 05:05:49 |
Calls: | 7,467 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,691 |
Messages: | 5,628,213 |