Trump defense motions for dismissal, Merchan to issue decision tomorrow morning

“There’s a frickin surprise!” - Vincent LaGuardia Gambini

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.

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

Apparently Trump is expected to bend over and say “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

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.

I’m pretty sure this motion is standard in most cases.

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.

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."

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.