Trump Trial: Judge Merchan won't allow certain Defense testimony

"Its not lawfare!" -SlowFlowPro

They just want a conviction for appearances only. They know any conviction will be overturned on appeal, but they'll have their TV ads that Trump is a "convicted felon."

Say “the fix is in” without saying “the fix is in.”

About all we are missing is him going full Ebony Rose Johnson to make the jury change their verdict illegally.

quote:

---

Trump Trial: Judge Merchan won't allow certain Defense testimony

---

So if the jury is rigged and he gets convicted there seems to be plenty of reversible offenses going on in this trial. What happens to Trump while awaiting appeal(s)?

quote:

---

"result in a battle of experts and confuse the jury."

---

So expert testimony isn't allowed because Jurors are too stupid to understand?

This judge has guaranteed being overturned on appeal, but thats not the goal. Its to occupy Trump and take hiim away from campaigning.

just

Can't call a witness to help exonerate you?

quote:

---

He also isn't allowing in an email that was sent to Cohen to impeach his testimony

---

It 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.

Plus “battle of the experts”? WTAF? There’s always a battle of the experts. He’s just saving Bragg bc they didn’t present an expert in election law.

Hell - Bragg didn’t even identify a crime.

PS - the judge instructs the jury on the law, so usually legal experts are excluded. I don’t see this as totally off base as the freaking hearsay rulings this dude has made.

quote:

---

He also isn't allowing in an email that was sent to Cohen to impeach his testimony, because it is hearsay, but allowed emails only sent to Cohen to be introduced as evidence for the State.

---

There are a lot of factors in the foundation that aren't explained here. For emails generally, like all other out of court communications, there is always a hearsay issue that has to be overcome.

quote:

---

can't use Brad Smith, an expert in campaign finance law, as a witness because it would "result in a battle of experts and confuse the jury.

---

Isn't that the PURPOSE of an EXPERT = to educate the jury on UNDERSTANDING the pertinent details of the subject??

I'm confused

Init is not typical in criminal trials to bring in “experts” to explain the law. That is the Court’s job.


As far as the e-mails are concerned, it depends on their contents and context. ;