Legal experts rebuke decision to rush Trump's DC trial: 'Not the way it works in our system'

[excalibur]

Of course, it doesn't work this way.

And, in fact, it is tantamount to telling defense attorneys to commit malpractice and not provide an adequate defense.

​

Criminal defense attorney and Columbia Law School lecturer Caroline Polisi explained on CNN why she was surprised by the date and the fact that the judge sided with the government's argument for an earlier trial.​

​

"You can't just really take the government's word for it," she said. "There are 12 million documents here to look through. The government noted there are duplicative documents in that dump, that he has many of them in his possession already.​

​

However, you can't just go on that. You are going to want to look through those documents to make sure there's nothing in there that's a surprise.​

​

...​

​

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agreed, explaining why the arguments prosecutors made for an earlier date just "don't cut it."​

​

"For example, one of the things DOJ argued, and the judge agreed with, is, well, he's sort of known that this was a possibility for a year or so," he said.​

​

"That's not the way it works in our system. You are not on notice, as a criminal defendant, until an indictment drops. That's the purpose of an indictment. You can't just say, 'Well, you kind of should have known there was something floating out there in the ether.' That doesn't cut it."​

​

Another of the "big rationales," Honig explained, is that prosecutors prepared a "handy guide to the most important documents" for the defense. But that means nothing — and should mean nothing — for Trump's attorneys.​

​

"That's nice. That's a sweet courtesy," he mocked. "But, guess what? It's up to the defense lawyer to decide what matters to the defense."​

​

...​

Legal experts rebuke decision to rush Trump's DC trial: 'Not the way it works in our system' | Blaze Media

Two legal experts questioned on Tuesday the justification for Donald Trump's election interference trial date.On Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump will begin trial on March 4, 2024, for the conspiracy and obstruction case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The judge...

www.theblaze.com

 

[Rogue AI]

The clownshow continues unabated at the detriment of our entire legal system. Sad.

 

[okfine]

Hey, Trump wants to drag it out, but other defendants AND the People want a speedy trial.
If he says he's innocent, he should be in a hurry to prove it.

 

[MinTrut]

Of course, it doesn't work this way.

And, in fact, it is tantamount to telling defense attorneys to commit malpractice and not provide an adequate defense.

​

Criminal defense attorney and Columbia Law School lecturer Caroline Polisi explained on CNN why she was surprised by the date and the fact that the judge sided with the government's argument for an earlier trial.​

​

"You can't just really take the government's word for it," she said. "There are 12 million documents here to look through. The government noted there are duplicative documents in that dump, that he has many of them in his possession already.​

​

However, you can't just go on that. You are going to want to look through those documents to make sure there's nothing in there that's a surprise.​

​

...​

​

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agreed, explaining why the arguments prosecutors made for an earlier date just "don't cut it."​

​

"For example, one of the things DOJ argued, and the judge agreed with, is, well, he's sort of known that this was a possibility for a year or so," he said.​

​

"That's not the way it works in our system. You are not on notice, as a criminal defendant, until an indictment drops. That's the purpose of an indictment. You can't just say, 'Well, you kind of should have known there was something floating out there in the ether.' That doesn't cut it."​

​

Another of the "big rationales," Honig explained, is that prosecutors prepared a "handy guide to the most important documents" for the defense. But that means nothing — and should mean nothing — for Trump's attorneys.​

​

"That's nice. That's a sweet courtesy," he mocked. "But, guess what? It's up to the defense lawyer to decide what matters to the defense."​

​

...​

Legal experts rebuke decision to rush Trump's DC trial: 'Not the way it works in our system' | Blaze Media

Two legal experts questioned on Tuesday the justification for Donald Trump's election interference trial date.On Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump will begin trial on March 4, 2024, for the conspiracy and obstruction case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The judge...

www.theblaze.com

This judge is a weird combo of incompetent and wildly arrogant - and of course biased to a deranged degree.

She’s already handed Trump a victory on appeal, and the case hasn’t even gone to trial yet.

 

[toobfreak]

If he says he's innocent, he should be in a hurry to prove it.

Gee, that is stupid, even for you. Trump is so innocent that he should want to have his trial this October, right! Maybe next week!

 

[wamose]

I don't think Democrats give two shits whether what they do is legal, moral or constitutional. They do whatever they want to do these days and keeping Trump, or any other Repub. from getting elected is what they want to do. MAGA

 

[Curried Goats]

I don't think Democrats give two shits whether what they do is legal, moral or constitutional. They do whatever they want to do these days and keeping Trump, or any other Repub. from getting elected is what they want to do. MAGA

We just don't give a shit about your Simp feelings since they have no bearing on reality.

 

[konradv]

Of course, it doesn't work this way.

And, in fact, it is tantamount to telling defense attorneys to commit malpractice and not provide an adequate defense.

​

Criminal defense attorney and Columbia Law School lecturer Caroline Polisi explained on CNN why she was surprised by the date and the fact that the judge sided with the government's argument for an earlier trial.​

​

"You can't just really take the government's word for it," she said. "There are 12 million documents here to look through. The government noted there are duplicative documents in that dump, that he has many of them in his possession already.​

​

However, you can't just go on that. You are going to want to look through those documents to make sure there's nothing in there that's a surprise.​

​

...​

​

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agreed, explaining why the arguments prosecutors made for an earlier date just "don't cut it."​

​

"For example, one of the things DOJ argued, and the judge agreed with, is, well, he's sort of known that this was a possibility for a year or so," he said.​

​

"That's not the way it works in our system. You are not on notice, as a criminal defendant, until an indictment drops. That's the purpose of an indictment. You can't just say, 'Well, you kind of should have known there was something floating out there in the ether.' That doesn't cut it."​

​

Another of the "big rationales," Honig explained, is that prosecutors prepared a "handy guide to the most important documents" for the defense. But that means nothing — and should mean nothing — for Trump's attorneys.​

​

"That's nice. That's a sweet courtesy," he mocked. "But, guess what? It's up to the defense lawyer to decide what matters to the defense."​

​

...​

Legal experts rebuke decision to rush Trump's DC trial: 'Not the way it works in our system' | Blaze Media

Two legal experts questioned on Tuesday the justification for Donald Trump's election interference trial date.On Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump will begin trial on March 4, 2024, for the conspiracy and obstruction case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The judge...

www.theblaze.com

Don’t care. Normally these same guys would be arguing against the how things work, which is what they’re actually doing, just in a back-handed way.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[elektra]

Hey, Trump wants to drag it out, but other defendants AND the People want a speedy trial.
If he says he's innocent, he should be in a hurry to prove it.

You are right except for the, dragging it out.

A speedy trial? The people dont get a speedy trail. This is not about the people, it is about the defendant getting a fair trail, or a speedy trial, if the defendant chooses.

Then there is the other thing, the other trail. This trail is right on top of the other. In all previous cases the judges and prosecutors discuss the timing of the cases. In this particular case, the Judge of the first scheduled trail was not consulted.

The timing of this trail makes it impossible for Trump to prepare for the previously scheduled trail.

This is all politics, nothing more. Jack Smith, purposely threw this trail in front of the other scheduled trail because he knows it is impossible to prepare for both.

 

[Curried Goats]

You are right except for the, dragging it out.

A speedy trial? The people dont get a speedy trail. This is not about the people, it is about the defendant getting a fair trail, or a speedy trial, if the defendant chooses.

Then there is the other thing, the other trail. This trail is right on top of the other. In all previous cases the judges and prosecutors discuss the timing of the cases. In this particular case, the Judge of the first scheduled trail was not consulted.

The timing of this trail makes it impossible for Trump to prepare for the previously scheduled trail.

This is all politics, nothing more. Jack Smith, purposely threw this trail in front of the other scheduled trail because he knows it is impossible to prepare for both.

So according to you dumb Bingos what's the alternative? If a criminal defendant doesn't want a speedy trial they get to delay as long as they want? That's stupid.

 

[Independentthinker]

Of course, it doesn't work this way.

And, in fact, it is tantamount to telling defense attorneys to commit malpractice and not provide an adequate defense.

​

Criminal defense attorney and Columbia Law School lecturer Caroline Polisi explained on CNN why she was surprised by the date and the fact that the judge sided with the government's argument for an earlier trial.​

​

"You can't just really take the government's word for it," she said. "There are 12 million documents here to look through. The government noted there are duplicative documents in that dump, that he has many of them in his possession already.​

​

However, you can't just go on that. You are going to want to look through those documents to make sure there's nothing in there that's a surprise.​

​

...​

​

Former federal prosecutor Elie Honig agreed, explaining why the arguments prosecutors made for an earlier date just "don't cut it."​

​

"For example, one of the things DOJ argued, and the judge agreed with, is, well, he's sort of known that this was a possibility for a year or so," he said.​

​

"That's not the way it works in our system. You are not on notice, as a criminal defendant, until an indictment drops. That's the purpose of an indictment. You can't just say, 'Well, you kind of should have known there was something floating out there in the ether.' That doesn't cut it."​

​

Another of the "big rationales," Honig explained, is that prosecutors prepared a "handy guide to the most important documents" for the defense. But that means nothing — and should mean nothing — for Trump's attorneys.​

​

"That's nice. That's a sweet courtesy," he mocked. "But, guess what? It's up to the defense lawyer to decide what matters to the defense."​

​

...​

Legal experts rebuke decision to rush Trump's DC trial: 'Not the way it works in our system' | Blaze Media

Two legal experts questioned on Tuesday the justification for Donald Trump's election interference trial date.On Monday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump will begin trial on March 4, 2024, for the conspiracy and obstruction case brought by special counsel Jack Smith. The judge...

www.theblaze.com

None of this crap against Trump is how it is supposed to work in our system.

 

[okfine]

So according to you dumb Bingos what's the alternative? If a criminal defendant doesn't want a speedy trial they get to delay as long as they want? That's stupid.

That poster obviously doesn't know the difference between the plaintiff and a defendant.

You are right except for the, dragging it out.

A speedy trial? The people dont get a speedy trail. This is not about the people, it is about the defendant getting a fair trail, or a speedy trial, if the defendant chooses.

Then there is the other thing, the other trail. This trail is right on top of the other. In all previous cases the judges and prosecutors discuss the timing of the cases. In this particular case, the Judge of the first scheduled trail was not consulted.

The timing of this trail makes it impossible for Trump to prepare for the previously scheduled trail.

This is all politics, nothing more. Jack Smith, purposely threw this trail in front of the other scheduled trail because he knows it is impossible to prepare for both.

Wrong. The People of this country are asking for a speedy trial whether you like it or not.

 

[elektra]

Wrong. The People of this country are asking for a speedy trial whether you like it or nonot.

I am right, the constitutional right to a speedy trail is the right of the person charged, not the public

Further, the federal government already scheduled a trail for the same time frame. This is a political move designed to prevent Trump from defending himself.