- 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
Trump defense motions for dismissal, Merchan to issue decision tomorrow morning
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:08 pm
Gee. I wonder what he will decide. I will hardly sleep tonight anticipating his impartial decision.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:10 pm to Indefatigable
“There’s a frickin surprise!” - Vincent LaGuardia Gambini
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:11 pm to Lsuhoohoo
Merchan holds Trump and lawyers in contempt for asking for dismissal.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:11 pm to Indefatigable
He already tipped his hand. But after his behavior in court this afternoon, he's going to pretend he's diligently mulling over the dismissal overnight before denying it.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:12 pm to Lsuhoohoo
quote:
Trump defense motions for dismissal, Merchan to issue decision tomorrow morning
Democrats are on notice. Better crank up the cash machine for his daughter. And before the morning if they wanna be assured of their preferred ruling.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:16 pm to Lsuhoohoo
The same judge who denied expert testimony because it’ll “confuse the jury” is now feigning indignation over their inability to determine the credibility of a witness statement?
This is an SNL skit
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
This is an SNL skit
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:20 pm to Lsuhoohoo
Merchan would essentially be admitting to a "two tiered" justice system .....not gonna happen.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:24 pm to Indefatigable
Apparently Trump is expected to bend over and say “Thank you sir, may I have another?”
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Except it isn't an SNL skit.
The same judge who denied expert testimony because it’ll “confuse the jury” is now feigning indignation over their inability to determine the credibility of a witness statement?
This is an SNL skit
This is what currently passes for our "legal system" ... aka ... our legal system is third world shite!
Yet, there are lawyers here who defend and "explain" this 3rd world kangaroo court bs
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:30 pm to Lsuhoohoo
But SlowFlowPro the esteemed attorney said this isnt lawfare ![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/IconLOL.gif)
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:31 pm to Indefatigable
Actually brings up an interesting issue where two different legal doctrines collide.
On the one hand, the trier of fact, which is the jury, is supposed to decide what to believe, including whether to believe something is true from someone who has been shown to be a liar.
On the other hand, the standard for a directed verdict is whether a reasonable jury could find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. When there is a linchpin fact issue, and the only person who testified in the prosecution's favor on that fact issue is shown to be a liar, even to the point of having lied on the witness stand in that trial, it would not seem to me to be beyond the province of the judge as a gatekeeper to rule that no reasonable jury could find that the prosecution has proved all elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I had the experience in a civil trial many years ago of arguing for a directed defense verdict under a less onerous standard for the plaintiff of proof of each element of his case as more probable than not. The judge agreed with me that when the only witness who testified "this happened" was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was shown to have lied to his doctors, to have lied in deposition, and to have lied under oath in the trial, no reasonable jury could find that he had carried his burden of proof. Jury dismissed, directed verdict for defense. But that judge had no political axe to grind.
On the one hand, the trier of fact, which is the jury, is supposed to decide what to believe, including whether to believe something is true from someone who has been shown to be a liar.
On the other hand, the standard for a directed verdict is whether a reasonable jury could find that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. When there is a linchpin fact issue, and the only person who testified in the prosecution's favor on that fact issue is shown to be a liar, even to the point of having lied on the witness stand in that trial, it would not seem to me to be beyond the province of the judge as a gatekeeper to rule that no reasonable jury could find that the prosecution has proved all elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I had the experience in a civil trial many years ago of arguing for a directed defense verdict under a less onerous standard for the plaintiff of proof of each element of his case as more probable than not. The judge agreed with me that when the only witness who testified "this happened" was the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was shown to have lied to his doctors, to have lied in deposition, and to have lied under oath in the trial, no reasonable jury could find that he had carried his burden of proof. Jury dismissed, directed verdict for defense. But that judge had no political axe to grind.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:32 pm to SDVTiger
quote:SlowFlowPro, the esteemed attorney, indicated the concept of lawfare was illusive to him.
SlowFlowPro the esteemed attorney said this isnt lawfare
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:33 pm to Wavefan
I’m pretty sure this motion is standard in most cases.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:35 pm to Wavefan
quote:
But that judge had no political axe to grind.
Agree with your post 100%. But the quoted statement is the operative fact here, IMO.
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:35 pm to Lsuhoohoo
![](https://i.ibb.co/yYyjVyg/Screenshot-20240520-163028.png)
How is this not jury tampering? Influencing the jury by a judge?
If you are the defendant. This is your bread and butter for appealing.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 5:10 pm
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
This is what currently passes for our "legal system" ... aka ... our legal system is third world shite!
This is what happens when you have an elected judiciary, which makes judges at the state or district level squarely in the same tier of moron as state/local politicians.
*I’m assuming this guy is elected like LA’s state judges are.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 4:40 pm
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:39 pm to chili pup
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconrotflmao.gif)
Basically, the judge is saying "So what if he lied under oath? The jury can separate that from the rest of the BS I allowed on the record."
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconrotflmao.gif)
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:40 pm to chili pup
Was the jury present for this?
Posted on 5/20/24 at 4:42 pm to TidenUP
quote:
Basically, the judge is saying "So what if he lied under oath? The jury can separate that
On its own, that would likely be proper. Witness credibility is theoretically for the jury to decide. It’s the defense’s job to jump up and down on it in their case and closing.
Given the whole body of work, this thing has mistrial and/or appellate remand for retrial written all over it.
Merchan is a clown that has no business being on the bench, regardless of how one feels about Donald Trump.
This post was edited on 5/20/24 at 4:43 pm
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)