- 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 1:02 pm to dukkbill
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:02 pm to dukkbill
quote:
From what I read
So you are saying the judge did not say he was not allowing the expert because he didn’t want the jury confused? Is that the assertion?
1
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:11 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Then we should have shut this board down after Q
I didn't participate in the q thread, did you?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Just so y'all know, the testimony at this trial has been spun completely differently by different outlets, so I wouldn't assume it was as bad as the echo chamber reported.
CNN dude.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:18 pm to Taxing Authority
Expert testimony about the law is typically not allowed. The judge is supposed to explain the law to the jury in the jury charges.
The parties can shape those jury charges when they file their versions and in the charge conference.
Battling experts is a tradition of litigation. Expert battle about industry standards, whether a party's act violated standards, etc. However, experts generally do not battle about the law. Judges will sometimes allow experts explain law from a different jurisdiction. but the judge is the expert on the law. The judge typically should not permit expert testimony on the law.
The parties can shape those jury charges when they file their versions and in the charge conference.
Battling experts is a tradition of litigation. Expert battle about industry standards, whether a party's act violated standards, etc. However, experts generally do not battle about the law. Judges will sometimes allow experts explain law from a different jurisdiction. but the judge is the expert on the law. The judge typically should not permit expert testimony on the law.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 1:23 pm
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:24 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
So you are saying the judge did not say he was not allowing the expert because he didn’t want the jury confused? Is that the assertion?
No, sorry for the confusion. What I understand from the blurbs
- the expert is allowed to testify, but the scope of his testimony was previously limited by the judges order
- the defense wanted to expand the allowable testimony
- the judge did not allow the expansion
- the judge did state it was to prevent the jury from being confused on conflicting legal instructions
I don’t know what the defense wanted to have as testimony but apparently it’s the same testimony disallowed in the Bankman-Fried case
I don’t have the transcripts yet so that is the most I have seen from other reports
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:32 pm to Salviati
quote:
Battling experts is a tradition of litigation. Expert battle about industry standards, whether a party's act violated standards, etc. However, experts generally do not battle about the law. Judges will sometimes allow experts explain law from a different jurisdiction. but the judge is the expert on the law. The judge typically should not permit expert testimony on the law.
The argument/out rage here is that the judge let the prosecution use a "expert" to battle about law but did not let the defense. If is common or typical for expert testimony about law not be allowed then why did he let the prosecution do so and then give the middle finger to the defense?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:33 pm to moneyg
SFP's posts on this are always the same. Always a subtle little condemnation of the thrial so he can convince himself later that he's objective, followed by heaps of shaming and Trump dumping. Something along the lines of: "I get that this looks bad, but there is almost certainly more to the story here. Trial law is very nuanced, but I wouldn't expect the drooling, Trump-loving retards here to understand this".
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:35 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I didn't participate in the q thread, did you?
I wasn't allowed to, but it filled this board with Boomers and changed the entire culture downward beyond Idiocracy.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:36 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
SFP's posts on this are always the same. Always a subtle little condemnation of the thrial so he can convince himself later that he's objective, followed by heaps of shaming and Trump dumping. Something along the lines of: "I get that this looks bad, but there is almost certainly more to the story here. Trial law is very nuanced, but I wouldn't expect the drooling, Trump-loving retards here to understand this".
Literally none of this happened ITT.
You're still living in a fantasy realm.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:46 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Literally none of this happened ITT.
your first post in this thread. the widdle qualified condemnation:
quote:
Yeah, I assume there is more to it than what's in OP (for obvious reasons)but that's a bad ruling almost universally.
your last post. the shaming:
quote:
it filled this board with Boomers and changed the entire culture downward beyond Idiocracy.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 1:59 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
your first post in this thread. the widdle qualified condemnation:
And?
quote:
it filled this board with Boomers and changed the entire culture downward beyond Idiocracy.
Facts are facts.
Facts don't care about your feelings (or fantasy projections)
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Having the ability to subpoena witnesses is not the same thing as having an expert testify.
Yeah man... I don't think that statement would survive Due Process scrutiny. Definitely wouldn't survive Post Conviction case law in my state.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:03 pm to SlowFlowPro
lol, you are such a cartoon.
none of that happened! you are crazy!
well.... OK, it DID happen but its true, so you are still crazy!!!!!
Classic leftist. You can never be wrong once you've convinced yourself that everyone else is either crazy or evil.
none of that happened! you are crazy!
well.... OK, it DID happen but its true, so you are still crazy!!!!!
Classic leftist. You can never be wrong once you've convinced yourself that everyone else is either crazy or evil.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:09 pm to CountryVolFan
You are just living in a fantasy world bro. This case is too complex for a lawyer with your background bro. This board is an echo chamber of retards even though I can’t stop posting here, bro.
SFP
SFP
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:12 pm to Wednesday
quote:
He also isn't allowing in an email that was sent to Cohen to impeach his testimony
This is a much bigger deal to me than the campaign finance guy.
There was a meeting between Cohen and Costello. After the meeting, an email was sent to Cohen saying essentially, "just confirming you said 'x'"
Then, Cohen takes the stand years later in this trial and says 'y'
Defense wants to show him the email and the judge won't let them claiming it was hearsay. Defense even argued that they don't care about the truth of the email because the fact that Cohen received it and never responded is both probative and relevant. Judge disagrees.
This is one of the easiest issues a judge would ever see in a trial. It is 1000000000% admissible/usable by a defense lawyer in that context. Bad judges can make bad rulings, but this one takes the cake...there is no real way to look at it other than intentional bias.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:25 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
well.... OK, it DID happen but its true, so you are still crazy!!!!!
You literally had to rely on shifting words to make this "point"
Again, you're living in fantasy land.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:26 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
You are just living in a fantasy world bro. This case is too complex for a lawyer with your background bro. This board is an echo chamber of retards even though I can’t stop posting here, bro.
8.5/10 melt
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:27 pm to CountryVolFan
quote:
I don't think that statement would survive Due Process scrutiny.
Understanding the difference in the ability to subpoena a witness, and having your expert denied? Did Trump have to subpoena his expert or something?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 2:55 pm to GumboPot
quote:What they really want is to be able to claim they showed compassion and let him off easy after finding him guilty.
The fix is in.
Trump will be guilty of a crime that we have yet to know about.
The question now is the sentencing. Will Trump get prison time, probation, ankle monitor, fine or will the moniker "convicted felon" be enough?
So he will get community service and supervised parole in lieu of jail time, ANY jail time and they will brag and brag about how they could've been worse.
HOWEVER, it will include a condition of can not leave the jurisdiction as part of their gracious supervision.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:24 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
But how long is it going to take for the appeal process? 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. And all that time they get to say he is convicted. It's bull.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News