- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trump Trial: Judge Merchan won't allow certain Defense testimony
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:19 am to doublecutter
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:19 am to doublecutter
Yes. Redirect should be limited to addressing only what was brought up on cross.
0
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:26 am to SirWinston
quote:Holy shite
Keeping it 1600 (Pod Save America bros) morning after 2016 election
And SFP called a dude in here a sissy?
Those guys are embarrassing.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 11:27 am
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:39 am to MFn GIMP
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:39 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
And SFP called a dude in here a sissy?
Those guys are embarrassing.
Are the PSA guys here posting now?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:42 am to MFn GIMP
Isn't the whole point of having your own experts to confuse the jury or at least cast doubt on the prosecution's case?
This judge is about as one-sided as any judge in Iran or North Korea.
This judge is about as one-sided as any judge in Iran or North Korea.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 11:45 am
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:47 am to Indefatigable
quote:
And cohen authenticated them on the stand, correct? Also depends on the content of the emails and what they were used for.
Only a retard Biden voter would think authentication by that lying POS Cohen would mean anything.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:50 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Having the ability to subpoena witnesses is not the same thing as having an expert testify.
Idiot. Not when it comes to Trump anyway.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:50 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
This is absolutely absurd.
It doesn't matter anymore. They could write a book with the amount of reversals this Judge will take Appellate hits on. They'll be talking about this case in Law Schools forever
Posted on 5/20/24 at 11:55 am to Diamondawg
quote:
What happens to Trump while awaiting appeal(s)?
He gets elected as the 47th President of the United States of America.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
Isn't that the point of the expert witness?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:20 pm to SirWinston
quote:
Mate why are you so protective of an obviously corrupt system?
Because he hates conservatives, America First and Trump/Trump supporters... so he's perfectly fine with corrupting the system against them.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:28 pm to VOR
quote:
Init is not typical in criminal trials to bring in “experts” to explain the law. That is the Court’s job.
Wait what? The defense already has their expert on the witness list and intended to call him to refute the testimony of Smith. It’s weird that they would also have an expert on campaign finance law already on the witness list if it is not typical in a criminal case.
quote:
Adav Noti—Noti is the Executive Director of Campaign Legal Center (CLC). Prior to CLC, Noti served more than ten years within the Office of General Counsel of the Federal Election Commission, in nonpartisan capacities. On March 1, 2024, the DA’s office informed Trump that it intended to call Noti as an expert witness to address the same topics as Trump’s expert, Bradley Smith (see below). Among other items, Noti might speak to the rules regarding a third-party’s payment of a candidate’s expenses and about how corporate expenditures, made for the purpose of influencing an election and in coordination with or at the request of a candidate or campaign, are unlawful.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:38 pm to Wednesday
quote:
literally says in the evidence rules in all 50 states and in the federal rules that an out of court statement used to impeach is not hearsay
I haven’t seen the transcript yet, but the blurb I got on the email states it’s an email from an associate of Robert Costello to Cohen. The email author (Costellos associate) gives his understanding of Costellos impression of the meeting.
I don’t know if the defense plans to call Costello
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:41 pm to KiwiHead
From what I read, the expert is being allowed to testify to what the Federal Election Commission is, its purpose, background, what laws if any it is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms. The defense wanted to expand the testimony, but I don’t know what they expected him to cover(although they stated it was the same subject matter that Smith was not allowed to testify on in the case against Sam Bankman- Fried)
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:46 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:
Merchan isn't even trying to hide it.
They're flaunting it in your face. The game is rigged.
Same about all the insanity that is going on.
They know they can get away with it
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:47 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I mean, is this his first trial?
I mean, he’s allowing a trial to go on for an act whose statute of limitations has expired.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Nor do I
No, but I don't watch CNN
Posted on 5/20/24 at 12:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Imagine med mal where only o e side gets expert witnesses.
Is that the whole purpose of competing experts?
“The defense cannot put on a case because it might confuse the jury or cause them to doubt the prosecution”
Ya know so jurors won’t be “confused”.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:00 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Imagine med mal where only o e side gets expert witnesses.
I sat on a medical malpractice trial jury last year and we literally had competing experts that we had to give weights to.
trying to imagine that judge saying to the defense (who we ultimately sided with) that they couldn't call witnesses who might conflict and confuse us.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News