The guy with a reputation for not paying his attorneys is having trouble attracting good legal council?
Shocked. I'm shocked.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
315 points (97.3% liked)
News
21742 readers
5848 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
His lawyers probably didn’t expect to juggle a dozen trials at the same time. That, and, no one even halfway competent would ever work for Trump. Most of his previous attorneys are codefendants in his criminal trials at this point.
I can hear the ineffective assistance of counsel appeal being typed up now.
"OK so what's our strategy here?"
"Well, I'm going to be so incompetent that when you're inevitably found guilty you can appeal on the basis that I'm incompetent"
"Genius. I love it."
Doubtless they will turn it a day late, and a dollar short. SMH
I'll write the order denying it - no prejudice given the mountains of evidence so he can '"get fukt".
So the repeated (ad nauseum) Trump claim "I only hire the best people" isn't accurate?
It's absolutely accurate, we just never asked by what metric "best" was being measured.
"Best" in this case was apparently "someone dumb enough to think Trump won't screw them out of money." :P
“They didn’t ask for payment up front.”
I'll let the team over at Legal Eagle answer that one
So, I must have followed a link to one of their videos at some point, because the YouTube algorithm spammed me their shit for months until I blocked it.
What kind of content is it? The thumbnails and titles looked rage baity
It's actually pretty decent legal oriented YouTube entertainment. He's a practicing lawyer that talks about current events and discusses possibly relevant laws or sometimes legal procedures. Sort of a more serious version of attorney tom.
It's pretty good. He definitely has a bias and I don't agree with him 100% of the time.
For example, he advocates that forced arbitration agreements isn't that bad. I don't agree with that at all.
But it's good content and high quality.
He's actually pretty good. I really enjoy some of his reviews of legal movies.
If Trump could hire the best lawyers money could buy, he would.
Problem is he is either stiffed his previous lawyers, so the smart ones don't trust him.
Or those lawyers are now witnesses in his legal battles. So they can't represent him.
Yeah when your lawyers have to record you (believe it's something from Cohen's testimony) to have a backup of what you requested, you don't get the best lawyers. Trump would never hire someone that seems smarter them himself, he has to be the most intelligent person in the room (lol). No one intelligent would really act dumb enough to be hired by someone who is notorious for not paying, mean unless there's other factors but he's not getting a highly regarded and clean lawyer at this point.
Anyone else have fun thinking about how fictional lawyers would represent Trump?
Like I could see someone like Lionel Hutz representing Trump. Maybe Barry Zuckercorn.
Not Bob Loblaw. I think Saul Goodman might pass on him. Kim Wexler I could see doing it probono.
I only hire the best people*
*that will actually agree to work for me, which is a small and shrinking list.
and probably not get paid
Oh no. 🍿
I’m just some idiot on the internet who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, but…
Is it possible this isn’t a mistake? If you’re going to try to win a trial through corruption and wrongdoings, it seems easier to illicitly win over (and have it stay quiet) one person than half of a jury, no?
This judge already appears to have an axe to grind with Trump, so, uh, it probably would have been easier with a jury.
That's their play, they don't want a jury because they're trying to pay the groundwork for a mistrial via judicial bias but that is a high jump and they're stumbling on molehills.
Not a mistake. They plan to win on appeal.
Sounds like he's setting up an appeal to a sympathetic judge on the basis of "the evil liberals were mean to me!"
You only need one juror though, no?
I’m honestly not sure. Does a jury vote need to be unanimous for a guilty verdict?
The jury has to be unanimous no matter the decision. If they can't agree, they either deliberate as long as it takes, or if the jury is hung, then they'll reduce the charges.
I posted this story in politics from another source a few days ago and it was removed because apparently the source wasn’t good enough and people couldn’t find it anywhere else. It was the only source reporting it at the time, but ok then.
edit: guess it was farther back than I remember, here’s that article from ~3 weeks ago
https://washingtonpress.com/2023/09/12/attorney-error-trump-eschews-jury-in-manhattan-case/
edit2: yep, 19 days ago
Quit being so fast and accurate with your news! This isn’t Reuters!
Sorry sorry I’ll build in a delay from now on.
Did he want a jury trial?
Yes, because they fully believe that 40% of the nation would exonerate him. So they want jury trials to be stacked with loyalists. There is also the possibility that they want to know who will make the decision so they can be coerced.
Slash have his cult threaten their lives. He's already gotten away with it a couple times without anything happening so why not again?
Dude just literally put a mafia style "make him an offer he can't refuse" hit on a 4 star general in our armed forces. With no consequences.
It depends on where the jury pool comes from. I doubt that 4 people in Manhattan or Brooklyn would want to exonerate him, much less 40%. But if they can pull from Staten Island as well, his chances of finding at least one goober who would be willing to ignore the facts and exonerate him get larger.
Long trials tend to have a large jury pool to select from. I was recently in the pool for a 7 week trial in Oakland and there were 150 of us to choose from. The defense just needs to find 4 Republicans to get into the jury and the case is over. You would assume a staunch Republican would try hard to get on the jury to help protect trump.
I think you underestimate how much New Yorkers (Particularly NYC) loathe Trump. Brooklyn and Queens saw something insane like 75% of the vote go to Biden, in Manhattan and then Bronx it was closer to 85%. And we can't assume the remaining 15% are full MAGA, either, they may have just not liked Biden but were ambivalent to Trump.
Staten Island is where NYC keeps its Conservatives, it went for Trump 52 to 42.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York
Given the stack of damning evidence against him, probably. Jury's adds an unknown quantity. So if you think you can win without on, you should not request one.
I think this is one of the trials with a Judge that he did not appoint...so he probably did in this one.
NY city, not federal. The judge was not appointed by trump at all (and trump has been incredibly hostile to said judge,)
Lol this is fantastic. The trial is going to be an absolute blast :D
Did he fire his attorneys? No? Then it was on purpose. He's building up to some political bullshit.
It also really limits his appeals options.
Good. Let's hope that this is just the first of stupidities he stumbles over. Didn't he already piss off the judge that presides over this case?
I'd love to see the judge rule from the bench on this.