Meanwhile in the MAL documents case...

[cosmickid]

There's a lot of speculation that Judge Cannon is deliberately trying to delay her case in order to help Trump. She has delayed setting a fixed court date, which wold necessitate implementing basic procedures that need to be completed prior to the actual trial.

The speculation is that she knows the temporary May date that she is loosely holding on to will undoubtedly need to be moved, But she's going to delay moving her date as long as possible to keep the space "filled".Basically many people feel that she is purposely holding on to May as a target date in order to prevent any other trial court being able to successfully fill the vacated May slot.

She has also so far been able to refrain from issuing written orders where she will violate a CIPA rule and allow Jack Smith to go to the 11th Circuit and move for her dismissal.Eventually she'll have to shit or get off the pot and Smith will pounce. But for now he is biding his time and waiting for her to screw up...

Part of it is that she has no idea what she is doing, and has never handled a CIPA case before. As a result she is in her eagerness to accomodate team Trump, basically violating provisions of CIPA procedure. As yet she hasn't committed anything to an official written order that is directly challengeable.

For example, the law does not allow for anyone but the Govt and Judge to be privy to the meeting where it is determined which documents can safely be presented at trial and which ones are too sensitive to even be allowed in Court. After Trump's attorneys filed to be allowed to attend ,rather than summarily denying the motion,as the law prescribes she created a "briefing meeting" where the idea could be "considered".

It's just another delay tactic and not even allowed under CIPA, but it's a way for her to continue to delay the ongoing process informally, without issuing an actual written order which is subject to review/discipline. Remember she tried this kind of move early on, and the same very Conservative 11th Circuit that Smith would go to now already smacked her down.

Unlike Cannon (and apparently Trump's legal team) Smith has a very thorough understanding of CIPA law, so she has to tread very carefully. He takes this shit very personally, and I'd say he is going to force her to get with the program, conduct the case the way the law prescribes, or he is going to get rid of her.

He has laid a number of rhetorical traps which again she has been able to avoid by not making any official moves that would get her in trouble. But he's going to continue to push and force her to either settle into a schedule in line with a May trial date, or admit that isn't possible and free up May for another trial. Possibly the DC case...

Now I probably haven't done a good job of explaining all that, but it sort of sets the stage for Smith's latest filing in the case. On Fri he filed a response (which I'm told is unusal) to counteract some of Trump's lies about the nature of the case. Maybe he is trying to impress upon Cannon the gravity of the charges involved, and counter Trump's claims that he's the victim of a political witchunt. Here is the Politico article discussing Smith's Fri filing...

Special counsel mounts forceful — and unusual — defense of Trump classified documents case

The routine filing features a public rebuttal of “misimpressions” allegedly fueled by the former president.

www.politico.com

Now if any of this interests you and you're like me in feeling like you benefit from video presentations more than just reading about something yourself , Glenn Kirschner provides a useful breakdown. Full disclosure Glenn who is a former US Attny is an unabshed liberal and works for MSNBC.

He's not someone I watch a lot of videos from, his tag line is hokey, and sometimes he strikes me as a little pompous. And in most cases he is just adding to stories I already know about.

But one part of this story really grabbed my attention, and I thought others might find it interesting as well. Esp when one of the defenses for Trump's actions is people claiming that MAL was a "secure fortress"...

This excerpt from the Politico article appears to underscore Smith's attempt in the filing to wake Cannon up to the gravity of the situation...

"The brief is also peppered with factual claims that make Trump’s behavior sound more serious and egregious. When discussing the defense’s request for more information from the Secret Service, prosecutors assert that their interaction with the federal agency that guards the president and his family underscored Trump’s recklessness in keeping a large volume of classified information at his Florida home, which also serves as a social club and a site for political and social events with lengthy guest lists.

The Secret Service reported that “of the approximately 48,000 guests who visited Mar-a-Lago between January 2021 and May 2022, while classified documents were at the property, only 2,200 had their names checked and only 2,900 passed through magnetometers."

 

[cosmickid]

There's a lot of speculation that Judge Cannon is deliberately trying to delay her case in order to help Trump. She has delayed setting a fixed court date, which wold necessitate implementing basic procedures that need to be completed prior to the actual trial.

The speculation is that she knows the temporary May date that she is loosely holding on to will undoubtedly need to be moved, But she's going to delay moving her date as long as possible to keep the space "filled".Basically many people feel that she is purposely holding on to May as a target date in order to prevent any other trial court being able to successfully fill the vacated May slot.

She has also so far been able to refrain from issuing written orders where she will violate a CIPA rule and allow Jack Smith to go to the 11th Circuit and move for her dismissal.Eventually she'll have to shit or get off the pot and Smith will pounce. But for now he is biding his time and waiting for her to screw up...

Part of it is that she has no idea what she is doing, and has never handled a CIPA case before. As a result she is in her eagerness to accomodate team Trump, basically violating provisions of CIPA procedure. As yet she hasn't committed anything to an official written order that is directly challengeable.

For example, the law does not allow for anyone but the Govt and Judge to be privy to the meeting where it is determined which documents can safely be presented at trial and which ones are too sensitive to even be allowed in Court. After Trump's attorneys filed to be allowed to attend ,rather than summarily denying the motion,as the law prescribes she created a "briefing meeting" where the idea could be "considered".

It's just another delay tactic and not even allowed under CIPA, but it's a way for her to continue to delay the ongoing process informally, without issuing an actual written order which is subject to review/discipline. Remember she tried this kind of move early on, and the same very Conservative 11th Circuit that Smith would go to now already smacked her down.

Unlike Cannon (and apparently Trump's legal team) Smith has a very thorough understanding of CIPA law, so she has to tread very carefully. He takes this shit very personally, and I'd say he is going to force her to get with the program, conduct the case the way the law prescribes, or he is going to get rid of her.

He has laid a number of rhetorical traps which again she has been able to avoid by not making any official moves that would get her in trouble. But he's going to continue to push and force her to either settle into a schedule in line with a May trial date, or admit that isn't possible and free up May for another trial. Possibly the DC case...

Now I probably haven't done a good job of explaining all that, but it sort of sets the stage for Smith's latest filing in the case. On Fri he filed a response (which I'm told is unusal) to counteract some of Trump's lies about the nature of the case. Maybe he is trying to impress upon Cannon the gravity of the charges involved, and counter Trump's claims that he's the victim of a political witchunt. Here is the Politico article discussing Smith's Fri filing...

Special counsel mounts forceful — and unusual — defense of Trump classified documents case

The routine filing features a public rebuttal of “misimpressions” allegedly fueled by the former president.

www.politico.com

Now if any of this interests you and you're like me in feeling like you benefit from video presentations more than just reading about something yourself , Glenn Kirschner provides a useful breakdown. Full disclosure Glenn who is a former US Attny is an unabshed liberal and works for MSNBC.

He's not someone I watch a lot of videos from, his tag line is hokey, and sometimes he strikes me as a little pompous. And in most cases he is just adding to stories I already know about.

But one part of this story really grabbed my attention, and I thought others might find it interesting as well. Esp when one of the defenses for Trump's actions is people claiming that MAL was a "secure fortress"...

This excerpt from the Politico article appears to underscore Smith's attempt in the filing to wake Cannon up to the gravity of the situation...

"The brief is also peppered with factual claims that make Trump’s behavior sound more serious and egregious. When discussing the defense’s request for more information from the Secret Service, prosecutors assert that their interaction with the federal agency that guards the president and his family underscored Trump’s recklessness in keeping a large volume of classified information at his Florida home, which also serves as a social club and a site for political and social events with lengthy guest lists.

The Secret Service reported that “of the approximately 48,000 guests who visited Mar-a-Lago between January 2021 and May 2022, while classified documents were at the property, only 2,200 had their names checked and only 2,900 passed through magnetometers."

A very interesting discussion with Harry Litman who as a former US Attny and Deputy Assistant AG had as part of his job description the task of vetting (prospective) Federal Judges. This is a more complete laying out of the case for the incompetency,if not outright corruption of Judge (I've tried 4 cases) Cannon.

Interesting speculation about what she stands to gain from a Trump presidency and her own resultant rise as a hero among MAGA ranks. Undoubtedly a grateful Trump would elevate her to at least the 11th Circuit, if not eventually a SCOTUS nomination. So the stakes are high...

I'm not even going to be around to suffer the consequences and I'm still irked by the notion that Trump could reward this incompetent, if not corrupt judge he only nominated to the bench in the waning days of his Presidency. As a layman, I'm curious as to how you could reliably determine a judge was qualified to be appointed a Federal Judge on the basis of 4 trial court cases amounting to about 14 weeks of actual time presiding as a judge. People have ragged on Wade's "inexperience" prior to being appointed a special prosecutor, but imho Cannon makes Wade look like Perry Mason...

Here's an example demonstrating the contrast between Cannon's inexperience/complicity and the by the law reaction by an experienced,competent Judge like Chutkan. Trump's lawyers made the same request to have access to the CIPA section 4 hearing of both Cannon and Chutkan. Chutkan denied the request summarily, while Cannon said she needed to schedule a meeting to discuss the request, which means more delays before she has to eventually comply with the law and deny Trump's request.

But the key difference between the two is that Chutkan followed the law without scheduling meritless meetings designed to delay the proceedings. Chutkan's response was forthright and reasoned and highlighted the absurdity of Trump's request...

She told Trump's team if they could show her a single example of any authority or any court anywhere allowing that type of access to be granted that she would look at it and consider their motion. But unless they could provide an example of a possible exception to what CIPA says, she was just going to go with what the law says and what every other court has done regarding that issue. Simple,neat and to the point- Trump is not special...

 

[mcmurtry66]

People have ragged on Wade's "inexperience" prior to being appointed a special prosecutor, but imho Cannon makes Wade look like Perry Mason...

man you have got to get off these crazy websites
cannon went to duke undergrad and michigan law where she was on journal. she was a us appel ct clerk, an associate at gibson dunn, and then spent almost a decade as an AUSA. she's perfectly experienced and speaks spanish which is key down there.

 

[Bowlmania]

A very interesting discussion with Harry Litman who as a former US Attny and Deputy Assistant AG had as part of his job description the task of vetting (prospective) Federal Judges. This is a more complete laying out of the case for the incompetency,if not outright corruption of Judge (I've tried 4 cases) Cannon.

Interesting speculation about what she stands to gain from a Trump presidency and her own resultant rise as a hero among MAGA ranks. Undoubtedly a grateful Trump would elevate her to at least the 11th Circuit, if not eventually a SCOTUS nomination. So the stakes are high...

I'm not even going to be around to suffer the consequences and I'm still irked by the notion that Trump could reward this incompetent, if not corrupt judge he only nominated to the bench in the waning days of his Presidency. As a layman, I'm curious as to how you could reliably determine a judge was qualified to be appointed a Federal Judge on the basis of 4 trial court cases amounting to about 14 weeks of actual time presiding as a judge. People have ragged on Wade's "inexperience" prior to being appointed a special prosecutor, but imho Cannon makes Wade look like Perry Mason...

Here's an example demonstrating the contrast between Cannon's inexperience/complicity and the by the law reaction by an experienced,competent Judge like Chutkan. Trump's lawyers made the same request to have access to the CIPA section 4 hearing of both Cannon and Chutkan. Chutkan denied the request summarily, while Cannon said she needed to schedule a meeting to discuss the request, which means more delays before she has to eventually comply with the law and deny Trump's request.

But the key difference between the two is that Chutkan followed the law without scheduling meritless meetings designed to delay the proceedings. Chutkan's response was forthright and reasoned and highlighted the absurdity of Trump's request...

She told Trump's team if they could show her a single example of any authority or any court anywhere allowing that type of access to be granted that she would look at it and consider their motion. But unless they could provide an example of a possible exception to what CIPA says, she was just going to go with what the law says and what every other court has done regarding that issue. Simple,neat and to the point- Trump is not special...

View embedded media

She and Trump are apparently on the same page in trying to run out the clock here. And in Cannon's case it may not be driven (or at least not exclusively driven) by loyalty to Trump. She quite possibly could be scared shitless to preside over the trial of such a high profile case. She may be thinking she'll never have to deal with a trial if scheduling is pushed back until after November, Trump wins and then directs Justice to drop the case.

At first blush, and with respect to experience, there are some similarities between Cannon and Scott McAfee, the 35 year-old judge who has been assigned the Trump RICO case in Georgia. Unlike Cannon, though, McAfee, has extensive experience trying cases, including major crimes, as a prosecutor. It appears that the bulk of Cannon's litigation experience has been in the appellate section of the US Attorney's office in south FL.

As you said, she's presided over a very small number of cases in her short time as a judge. In one of them, she forgot to swear in the jury. What a mess.

 

[mcmurtry66]

She and Trump are apparently on the same page in trying to run out the clock here. And in Cannon's case it may not be driven (or at least not exclusively driven) by loyalty to Trump. She quite possibly could be scared shitless to preside over the trial of such a high profile case. She may be thinking she'll never have to deal with a trial if scheduling is pushed back until after November, Trump wins and then directs Justice to drop the case.

At first blush, and with respect to experience, there are some similarities between Cannon and Scott McAfee, the 35 year-old judge who has been assigned the Trump RICO case in Georgia. Unlike Cannon, though, McAfee, has extensive experience trying cases, including major crimes, as a prosecutor. It appears that the bulk of Cannon's litigation experience has been in the appellate section of the US Attorney's office in south FL.

As you said, she's presided over a very small number of cases in her short time as a judge. In one of them, she forgot to swear in the jury. What a mess.

i would disagree. she started out in the crimes division as a prosecutor then later moved to the app court working on sentencing and convictions. i'd say that's a perfect combination. as for running out the clock i don't disagree.

you know how many judges have zero trial experience. shit i know a chief judge who tried less than 5 cases entire career when put on the bench. i'd also say the GA while crazy young at least has a bunch of crim experience in the prosecutor's office. better than most who end up on the bench

 

[cosmickid]

She and Trump are apparently on the same page in trying to run out the clock here. And in Cannon's case it may not be driven (or at least not exclusively driven) by loyalty to Trump. She quite possibly could be scared shitless to preside over the trial of such a high profile case. She may be thinking she'll never have to deal with a trial if scheduling is pushed back until after November, Trump wins and then directs Justice to drop the case.

At first blush, and with respect to experience, there are some similarities between Cannon and Scott McAfee, the 35 year-old judge who has been assigned the Trump RICO case in Georgia. Unlike Cannon, though, McAfee, has extensive experience trying cases, including major crimes, as a prosecutor. It appears that the bulk of Cannon's litigation experience has been in the appellate section of the US Attorney's office in south FL.

As you said, she's presided over a very small number of cases in her short time as a judge. In one of them, she forgot to swear in the jury. What a mess.

It looks like Smith has said enough of this...

So Smith provided more than required to Trump for discovery, including potential govt witnesses,FBI code names etc...

For some reason (dws) Trump feels the need for all of that info to be made public. He made a filing and kept the info redacted as prescribed by law, but subsequentlyhe filed a request to remove the redactions from "his filing".

In effect he asked her to allow him to make public the names etc that he obtained thru discovery. And inexplicably she agreed...

Why in the world would Trump want that info to be made public? Surely not so his wierd MAGA cultists could spread the info all over the internet and at the very least intimidate the potential witnesses? Trumpo would never engage in that type of behavior and diabolical scheming, just like he'd never rape a woman in a dept store. Right?

Anyway it looks like Smith is giving Cannon a chance to reconsider and stay her previous ruling, before he appeals to the 11th Circuit. Another example of her ****ing up and making a ruling that makes absolutely no sense, except to Trump's fevered brain. Many legal experts feel that Smith has already been too indulgent in not going back to the 11th Circuit sooner, but others feel that he has basically given her enough rope to hang herself and patiently bided his time.

At this point, Smith is probably not too concerned with her delaying tactics and pushing the trial back. That just frees up May and the next 2 or 3 months to allow Chutkan to slide her case in and hopefully reach a conclusion prior to the election. But he's definitely concerned when her incompetence turns dangerous and (inadvertently or not) she makes rulings which threaten to pollute the jury pool, or open witnesses to mob like intimidation...

 

[UncleMark]

So it sounds like Trump moved a bunch of the stolen classified documents to New Jersey, on the day they were meeting with the Feds and telling them everything had been turned over.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/11/politics/trump-employee-5-classified-documents-mar-a-lago/index.html

 

[Bowlmania]

The latest in the documents case is the report that two federal judges urged Cannon to hand off the case after she botched the handling of Trump’s challenge to the search warrant.

“But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel.”

What a mess.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4731992-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case-judges/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/us/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-classified-documents.html

 

[Indyhorn]

Trump Uber Alles obviously

 

[mcmurtry66]

The latest in the documents case is the report that two federal judges urged Cannon to hand off the case after she botched the handling of Trump’s challenge to the search warrant.

“But Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, wanted to keep the case and refused the judges’ entreaties. Her assignment drew attention because she has scant trial experience and had previously shown unusual favor to Mr. Trump by intervening in a way that helped him in the criminal investigation that led to his indictment, only to be reversed in a sharply critical rebuke by a conservative appeals court panel.”

What a mess.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4731992-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case-judges/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/us/politics/aileen-cannon-trump-classified-documents.html

that case won't be heard before the election. more interesting than cannon is if they decide that the ft pierce division isn't equipped (infrastructure) to handle the media and all the rest of a trial of that magnitude and decide it needs to be switched to miami. i don't know if the jury pool switches or if it's still the same five counties around ft pierce. it would be a hell of a burden to ask those northern jurors to fight 95 and turnpike traffic every day. but the composition of that jury would be a gamechanger

 

[UncleMark]

that case won't be heard before the election. more interesting than cannon is if they decide that the ft pierce division isn't equipped (infrastructure) to handle the media and all the rest of a trial of that magnitude and decide it needs to be switched to miami. i don't know if the jury pool switches or if it's still the same five counties around ft pierce. it would be a hell of a burden to ask those northern jurors to fight 95 and turnpike traffic every day. but the composition of that jury would be a gamechanger

They've already had to construct a SCIF to accommodate all the classified material.

 

[mcmurtry66]

They've already had to construct a SCIF to accommodate all the classified material.

Seriously?

 

[mcmurtry66]

They've already had to construct a SCIF to accommodate all the classified material.

Judges/cases are on a blind rotation. I think it would set a horrible precedent to roll her off and I’d be very surprised if that happened. Kicking to the Miami division could happen. Same judge but again I don’t know where that pool comes from - Miami pool or fort pool

 

[Bowlmania]

that case won't be heard before the election.

Of course the documents case won't be tried before the election.

"Cannon’s indefinite punting of the case came after lawyers for both Trump and the government said they would be willing to go to trial by summer.

"Her slow handling of the case has all but guaranteed he will not face trial before the election, where, if Trump wins, he can direct the Justice Department to drop the charges."

Travesty.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4731992-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case-judges/

 

[mcmurtry66]

Of course the documents case won't be tried before the election.

"Cannon’s indefinite punting of the case came after lawyers for both Trump and the government said they would be willing to go to trial by summer.

"Her slow handling of the case has all but guaranteed he will not face trial before the election, where, if Trump wins, he can direct the Justice Department to drop the charges."

Travesty.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4731992-aileen-cannon-trump-documents-case-judges/

I give him a 1 percent chance of losing in fort Pierce regardless

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I give him a 1 percent chance of losing in fort Pierce regardless

Why is that? I fully believe people can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a thoughtful and fair verdict.

 

[Bowlmania]

Why is that? I fully believe people can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a thoughtful and fair verdict.

Absolutely. A recent example is the Hunter Biden case. A jury in deep blue Delaware convicted him of felonies. One of the jurors commented after the trial (unlike the Trump case, the jurors who heard the Hunter Biden case don't have to fear for their lives, so a number of them spoke with the media) that politics did not come into play. Another juror said the case "seemed like a waste of taxpayer dollars." She still voted guilty.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Why is that? I fully believe people can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a thoughtful and fair verdict.

for sure they can. anyone who has tried cases will tell you forum is massive. jurors. a personal injury case in a white republican county will yield a very different result than the same case in a black dem county. the latter is usually worth as much as three times more than the former. jurors and their predilections mean more than anything (judges etc) if you can get it to a trial. in fort pierce four of the five counties are heavily republican. these aren't your rich libs and jews of broward, palm, and dade. these are maga types of highlands and okeechobee that might as well be rural indiana. with biden having had classified documents, love of trump, disdain for the man and the system, i'd be shocked if he gets convicted in fort pierce. switch it to miami and if it's a miami division pool that's a different story

 

[mcmurtry66]

Absolutely. A recent example is the Hunter Biden case. A jury in deep blue Delaware convicted him of felonies. One of the jurors commented after the trial (unlike the Trump case, the jurors who heard the Hunter Biden case don't have to fear for the lives, so a number of them spoke with the media) that politics did not come into play. Another juror said the case "seemed like a waste of taxpayer dollars." She still voted guilty.

hunter isn't trump in trump loving counties. apples to oranges. not to mention the cases are wholly inapposite.

 

[Bowlmania]

hunter isn't trump in trump loving counties. apples to oranges. not to mention the cases are wholly inapposite.

That's an incorrect usage of "inapposite."

Of course the cases are different. That's irrelevant with respect to Marv's argument that jurors can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a thoughtful and fair verdict. He's correct, and I provided a recent and relevant example that supports his position.

 

[mcmurtry66]

That's an incorrect usage of "inapposite."

Of course the cases are different. That's irrelevant with respect to Marv's argument that jurors can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a thoughtful and fair verdict. He's correct, and I provided a recent and relevant example that supports his position.

Beliefs that jurors bring are never fully sanitized and forum shopping exists for that very reason whether it be judges or jurors. Why do you think there are hellholes? You think manhattan juries with Carroll would render the same verdict as a highlands county jury?

Inapposite. Inappropriate. Out of place. Your comparison was exactly that

 

[Marvin the Martian]

for sure they can. anyone who has tried cases will tell you forum is massive. jurors. a personal injury case in a white republican county will yield a very different result than the same case in a black dem county. the latter is usually worth as much as three times more than the former. jurors and their predilections mean more than anything (judges etc) if you can get it to a trial. in fort pierce four of the five counties are heavily republican. these aren't your rich libs and jews of broward, palm, and dade. these are maga types of highlands and okeechobee that might as well be rural indiana. with biden having had classified documents, love of trump, disdain for the man and the system, i'd be shocked if he gets convicted in fort pierce. switch it to miami and if it's a miami division pool that's a different story

I get some people want to sock it to the man in deciding awards, but are they that much more likely to find fault? I'd think insurance would almost always try to settle if that's the case. I'll trust the jury and not start down the road of "they are out to get even/get someone".

 

[mcmurtry66]

I get some people want to sock it to the man in deciding awards, but are they that much more likely to find fault? I'd think insurance would almost always try to settle if that's the case. I'll trust the jury and not start down the road of "they are out to get even/get someone".

insurance companies almost always do try to settle @larsIU will tell you. that. MO is pure comparative so even if partially at fault you can recover. the fight is always over the amount of damages. the value. as for trump. it's trial practice 101. the jury pool is critical

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/trump-trial-documents-florida-jury.html

 

[Bowlmania]

I get some people want to sock it to the man in deciding awards, but are they that much more likely to find fault? I'd think insurance would almost always try to settle if that's the case. I'll trust the jury and not start down the road of "they are out to get even/get someone".

I'm stating the obvious but civil and criminal cases are very different, and so are the juries who decide them. Civil cases don't require unanimity, the burden of proof is different (much less stringent in civil cases) and, with some exceptions, there's generally not that same degree of gravitas that is a feature of the overwhelming majority of criminal trials, where the defendant's liberty is on the line.

Jurors know what's at stake in a criminal trial. There's no fvcking around and they work their asses off to get it right.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I get some people want to sock it to the man in deciding awards, but are they that much more likely to find fault? I'd think insurance would almost always try to settle if that's the case. I'll trust the jury and not start down the road of "they are out to get even/get someone".

here's a good article on the system there and a quote from a stuart crim defense lawyer

Florida jury pool could give Trump an advantage in classified documents case

The classified documents prosecution of Donald Trump would seem, on paper at least, to be the most straightforward of the four criminal cases the former president is facing.

apnews.com

“The more conservative the counties, the highest chance he has to find jurors that would be sympathetic with him,” said Richard Kibbey, a criminal defense attorney in Stuart, Florida, part of the Fort Pierce district where the jury pool is expected to be taken from.

When it comes to finding truly impartial jurors, he added, “It’s going to be very difficult given the political climate across the country. Jurors will bring their own biases into the court room.”

this is just reality

I'm stating the obvious but civil and criminal cases are very different, and so are the juries who decide them. Civil cases don't require unanimity, the burden of proof is different (much less stringent in civil cases) and, with some exceptions, there's generally not that same degree of gravitas that is a feature of the overwhelming majority of criminal trials, where the defendant's liberty is on the line.

Jurors know what's at stake in a criminal trial. There's no fvcking around and they work their asses off to get it right.

this isn't hard. it's trial practice 101 and common sense. you get west palm you get outside shooter. you get highlands you get dbm. you get miami you get some hispanic person and a hodgepodge. what hte stuart defense lawyer said is spot on

OJ is a more appropriate comparison than hunter. No one likes hunter

 

[Bowlmania]

here's a good article on the system there and a quote from a stuart crim defense lawyer

Florida jury pool could give Trump an advantage in classified documents case

The classified documents prosecution of Donald Trump would seem, on paper at least, to be the most straightforward of the four criminal cases the former president is facing.

apnews.com

“The more conservative the counties, the highest chance he has to find jurors that would be sympathetic with him,” said Richard Kibbey, a criminal defense attorney in Stuart, Florida, part of the Fort Pierce district where the jury pool is expected to be taken from.

When it comes to finding truly impartial jurors, he added, “It’s going to be very difficult given the political climate across the country. Jurors will bring their own biases into the court room.”

this is just reality


this isn't hard. it's trial practice 101 and common sense. you get west palm you get outside shooter. you get highlands you get dbm. you get miami you get some hispanic person and a hodgepodge. what hte stuart defense lawyer said is spot on

OJ is a more appropriate comparison than hunter. No one likes hunter

I'm not disputing that there are regional differences in ideology and politics that could (emphasis "could") impact the overall outcome, and the Trump cases are certainly unique and unpredictable with a populist former president in the unprecedented status of criminal defendant, but Marv's general observation that jurors can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a fair verdict is unquestionably true. Even your article supports his position: "But despite the importance of jury selection and the fact that both sides will look to jury selection to pick the best possible panel for their respective cases, the outcome may still come down to which team has the best evidence and arguments. 'It's a high-profile defendant but I suspect that when push comes to shove, most people don't make all of their important decisions based on politics,' said Richard Serafini, a Florida defense attorney and former Justice Department official.

Here's what FOX News' law expert Jonathan Turley said about the Hunter Biden case, anticipating a hung jury or acquittal, before it was tried:

"Unlike Donald Trump in Manhattan, Delaware is Biden country. The chance that he will get strong supporters of his father on the jury is an almost statistical certainty. In 2020, Joe Biden received roughly 60 percent of the vote over Donald Trump in the state. Having first lady Jill Biden, who is extremely popular, at the trial will only reinforce the connection.

In addition to a favorable jury pool, Biden may be hoping that testimony on his travails with drugs will prompt one or more jurors to ignore the law and vote to acquit. Notably, virtually all of the selected jurors have said that they know of someone who has struggled with drugs."

None of that mattered. Hunter Biden was found guilty. Those "strong supporters of his father" voted to convict. Turley was wrong.

I'll say it again. Criminal trial jurors are conscientious, work their asses off, and almost always get it right.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I get some people want to sock it to the man in deciding awards, but are they that much more likely to find fault? I'd think insurance would almost always try to settle if that's the case. I'll trust the jury and not start down the road of "they are out to get even/get someone".

I get some people want to sock it to the man in deciding awards, but are they that much more likely to find fault? I'd think insurance would almost always try to settle if that's the case. I'll trust the jury and not start down the road of "they are out to get even/get someone".

I'm not disputing that there are regional differences in ideology and politics that could (emphasis "could") impact the overall outcome, and the Trump cases are certainly unique and unpredictable with a populist former president in the unprecedented status of criminal defendant, but Marv's general observation that jurors can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a fair verdict is unquestionably true. Even your article supports his position: "But despite the importance of jury selection and the fact that both sides will look to jury selection to pick the best possible panel for their respective cases, the outcome may still come down to which team has the best evidence and arguments. 'It's a high-profile defendant but I suspect that when push comes to shove, most people don't make all of their important decisions based on politics,' said Richard Serafini, a Florida defense attorney and former Justice Department official.

Here's what FOX News' law expert Jonathan Turley said about the Hunter Biden case, anticipating a hung jury or acquittal, before it was tried:

"Unlike Donald Trump in Manhattan, Delaware is Biden country. The chance that he will get strong supporters of his father on the jury is an almost statistical certainty. In 2020, Joe Biden received roughly 60 percent of the vote over Donald Trump in the state. Having first lady Jill Biden, who is extremely popular, at the trial will only reinforce the connection.

In addition to a favorable jury pool, Biden may be hoping that testimony on his travails with drugs will prompt one or more jurors to ignore the law and vote to acquit. Notably, virtually all of the selected jurors have said that they know of someone who has struggled with drugs."

None of that mattered. Hunter Biden was found guilty. Those "strong supporters of his father" voted to convict. Turley was wrong.

I'll say it again. Jurors are conscientious, work their asses off, and almost always get it right.

The outcome “may.” I totally agree on jurors generally. Knowing that area as well as I do there is a significant likelihood a Dbm Cray joehoopsier DANC will be on that jury and likely a few of them. . And that’s all it takes. We’ve seen the same arguments on here re Biden did the same thing. Targeting etc.

I will bet anything if it stays in that division he’s not convicted. You have a favorable pool AND bc Biden had docs a built in excuse

And again I don’t think hunter is a good comparison. OJ is better. Switching there was the difference too

 

[Bowlmania]

We’ve seen the same arguments on here re Biden did the same thing. Targeting etc.

I don't know what that means.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I don't know what that means.

Joe Biden had classified docs. Selective prosecution. Political.

Favorable judge. Favorable pool. Trump won’t get convicted in fort

Miami. Who knows

 

[larsIU]

insurance companies almost always do try to settle @larsIU will tell you. that. MO is pure comparative so even if partially at fault you can recover. the fight is always over the amount of damages. the value. as for trump. it's trial practice 101. the jury pool is critical

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/22/us/politics/trump-trial-documents-florida-jury.html

Whatever it takes to get a release.

And the only lawyers that truly fight insurance companies are at least two of these three things:

1. Stupid
2. Rich
3. In possession of overwhelming documentation that their case is a slam dunk winner

#3 never happens b/c the carriers will settle. They aren't stupid.

Edit: this is personal injury auto/GL shit I'm talking about. YMMV

 

[mcmurtry66]

Whatever it takes to get a release.

And the only lawyers that truly fight insurance companies are at least two of these three things:

1. Stupid
2. Rich
3. In possession of overwhelming documentation that their case is a slam dunk winner

#3 never happens b/c the carriers will settle. They aren't stupid.

Edit: this is personal injury auto/GL shit I'm talking about. YMMV

Bitch bad faith. That’s where the well heeled sharks swim

 

[Bowlmania]

Joe Biden had classified docs. Selective prosecution. Political.

Favorable judge. Favorable pool. Trump won’t get convicted in fort

Miami. Who knows

The biggest problem for Trump isn't that he took the documents but rather that he stymied the efforts to retrieve them and obstructed the investigation.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The biggest problem for Trump isn't that he took the documents but rather that he stymied the efforts to retrieve them and obstructed the investigation.

Agreed. But humor me here. Let’s assume you get one Dbm and one cray on the jury. Bc I think you will in that division. Can you win that case as a prosecutor? I say no chance.

 

[Bowlmania]

First, I don't know anything about dbm or cray other than what they post here which reflects an echo chamber existence and low information. Having to listen to opposing testimony and arguments, probably (for them) for the very first time, and examining documentary evidence could be an epiphany.

Also, 10 or 11 jurors can be very persuasive with a holdout or two.

 

[mcmurtry66]

First, I don't know anything about dbm or cray other than what they post here which reflects an echo chamber existence and low information. Having to listen to opposing testimony and arguments, probably (for them) for the very first time, and examining documentary evidence could be an epiphany.

Also, 10 or 11 jurors can be very persuasive with a holdout or two.

I don’t see it. That’s hardcore maga country

 

[larsIU]

Bitch bad faith. That’s where the well heeled sharks swim

I hated KY and MA (3rd party bad faith, who the **** came up with that nonsense).

In MA they'd send 10 day time limited demands knowing our mail system took 5 of those days to scan and get to an overworked adjuster who'd invariably miss the 10 day window.

BAD FAITH BAD FAITH!! TREBLE DAMAGES!!!

First party UM/UIM is a hellhole.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I hated KY and MA (3rd party bad faith, who the **** came up with that nonsense).

In MA they'd send 10 day time limited demands knowing our mail system took 5 of those days to scan and get to an overworked adjuster who'd invariably miss the 10 day window.

BAD FAITH BAD FAITH!! TREBLE DAMAGES!!!

First party UM/UIM is a hellhole.

🤣🤣😍😍😍 third party bad faith assignments!!!! That’s how you lose wives!!! That’s a whole year of #WHITEBOYSUMMERFUN

 

[bailey777]

She and Trump are apparently on the same page in trying to run out the clock here. And in Cannon's case it may not be driven (or at least not exclusively driven) by loyalty to Trump. She quite possibly could be scared shitless to preside over the trial of such a high profile case. She may be thinking she'll never have to deal with a trial if scheduling is pushed back until after November, Trump wins and then directs Justice to drop the case.

At first blush, and with respect to experience, there are some similarities between Cannon and Scott McAfee, the 35 year-old judge who has been assigned the Trump RICO case in Georgia. Unlike Cannon, though, McAfee, has extensive experience trying cases, including major crimes, as a prosecutor. It appears that the bulk of Cannon's litigation experience has been in the appellate section of the US Attorney's office in south FL.

As you said, she's presided over a very small number of cases in her short time as a judge. In one of them, she forgot to swear in the jury. What a mess.W

The biggest problem for Trump isn't that he took the documents but rather that he stymied the efforts to retrieve them and obstructed the investigation.

Why do you even care about court cases you said everyone hates trump and he will be super easy to beat. So why do you care you boy should easily mop the floor with trump next week and cruise to a 20 point win. Heck your boy should be able to win over 40 states since trump is so hated by everyone.

 

[BradStevens]

I'm not disputing that there are regional differences in ideology and politics that could (emphasis "could") impact the overall outcome, and the Trump cases are certainly unique and unpredictable with a populist former president in the unprecedented status of criminal defendant, but Marv's general observation that jurors can set aside their partisan beliefs and render a fair verdict is unquestionably true. Even your article supports his position: "But despite the importance of jury selection and the fact that both sides will look to jury selection to pick the best possible panel for their respective cases, the outcome may still come down to which team has the best evidence and arguments. 'It's a high-profile defendant but I suspect that when push comes to shove, most people don't make all of their important decisions based on politics,' said Richard Serafini, a Florida defense attorney and former Justice Department official.

Here's what FOX News' law expert Jonathan Turley said about the Hunter Biden case, anticipating a hung jury or acquittal, before it was tried:

"Unlike Donald Trump in Manhattan, Delaware is Biden country. The chance that he will get strong supporters of his father on the jury is an almost statistical certainty. In 2020, Joe Biden received roughly 60 percent of the vote over Donald Trump in the state. Having first lady Jill Biden, who is extremely popular, at the trial will only reinforce the connection.

In addition to a favorable jury pool, Biden may be hoping that testimony on his travails with drugs will prompt one or more jurors to ignore the law and vote to acquit. Notably, virtually all of the selected jurors have said that they know of someone who has struggled with drugs."

None of that mattered. Hunter Biden was found guilty. Those "strong supporters of his father" voted to convict. Turley was wrong.

I'll say it again. Criminal trial jurors are conscientious, work their asses off, and almost always get it right.

I think everything you say is true w/r/t juries, especially in criminal trials.

The difference here is Trump. He's probably sui generis, the most polarizing political figure of my lifetime. MAGA people LOVE him, think he's the only person who can save the country from communism/deep state/etc.. Partisans on the Left HATE him, think he's like Hitler, will end democracy as we know it in this country and is a monster.

In most of the country, it's probably impossible for him to get a fair trial, in either direction, no matter how sincere the judge or how hard they vet the jury pool.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I think everything you say is true w/r/t juries, especially in criminal trials.

The difference here is Trump. He's probably sui generis, the most polarizing political figure of my lifetime. MAGA people LOVE him, think he's the only person who can save the country from communism/deep state/etc.. Partisans on the Left HATE him, think he's like Hitler, will end democracy as we know it in this country and is a monster.

In most of the country, it's probably impossible for him to get a fair trial, in either direction, no matter how sincere the judge or how hard they vet the jury pool.

Exactly