Due to an oversight, Trump’s attorneys failed to ask for a jury trial within the time allotted to them

  • Mammal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    113
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The guy with a reputation for not paying his attorneys is having trouble attracting good legal council?

    Shocked. I’m shocked.

    • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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.”

  • krayj@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    So the repeated (ad nauseum) Trump claim “I only hire the best people” isn’t accurate?

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • Crozekiel@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • captsneeze@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Googlyman64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Sylver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • CobblerScholar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Slash have his cult threaten their lives. He’s already gotten away with it a couple times without anything happening so why not again?

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • dhork@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Cheesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • dhork@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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

    • SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        NY city, not federal. The judge was not appointed by trump at all (and trump has been incredibly hostile to said judge,)

  • mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    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?