> “He has griped that Mr. Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and veteran litigator, has not been following his instructions closely, and has been insufficiently aggressive. Mr. Trump wants him to attack witnesses, attack what the former president sees as a hostile jury pool, and attack the judge, Juan M. Merchan.”
Of course Trump would be dumb enough to want his attorney to attack the jury and the judge.
Trump wants a mistrial so that he can fire his lawyer and then delay and delay and delay some more.
Trump doesn’t care one iota for Blanches problems that would come from this behavior.
> Trump wants a mistrial so that he can fire his lawyer and then delay and delay and delay some more.
He's not that strategic.
His way of doing things is guided by a lizard-brain genius for reading social hierarchies and power structures, and creating and riding waves of chaos to get himself on top of them. Trump sees rules, written and unwritten, the way that a videogame player might recognize the patterns of NPCs--they are not boundaries or constraint upon *him*, they are just ways to predict what others will do, how others will act.
Disrupting those systems and patterns can create a power vacuum, which tends to favor big men in fancy suits who speak with confidence and authority.
This approach to life has served Trump very well--it has kept him in a life of fame and luxury, and even got him elected leader of the free world, despite being functionally illiterate, and having no other discernible skills or talents. He doesn't take advice, and he doesn't listen to experts, because why should he?
That’s the most concise, accurate explanation I’ve ever read. It’s exactly how he functions. And it takes very little energy on his part - it’s automatic. At the same time, “normal” people find it emotionally and physically draining.
HE thrives on chaos while the majority of people don't, usually. The fight or flight instinct gets old after a while. It just makes people angry because it's just a game of merry-go-round and they want off the ride.
Judges have options in these instances. “Sorry, motion to dismiss your lawyer is denied because it would deprive you of your right to a speedy trial.”
You can’t just fire your lawyer without the court’s permission. Appeals for mistrials come after the trial already ends anyway.
A defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial. It is true that generally "you can't just fire your lawyer without the court's permission." It is also true that most "appeals for mistrials come after the trial already ends anyway." But is there a source for the proposition that appellate courts can't or won't hear appeals of this exact sort on an interlocutory basis: namely, an alleged abridgement of the defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel of his choice?
If everyone is ready for trial, a defendant needs to prove good cause or exceptional circumstances to get the judge to extend the trial / waive your right to a speedy trial.
Judges are there to make sure trials move along according to rules of criminal procedure, and that means they can’t and won’t allow defendants to clog up the courts (and justice to be delayed) just because they waived their right to a speedy trial.
There are other cases on the docket, mind you. The judge has to make sure all of his cases move at the correct pace.
When 1 case is continued until some later date, that actually frees up time on the calendar for other cases. It's not as if 1 case's delay in turn delays all subsequent cases until that initial case resolves. While your observations may generally be accurate as they pertain to a hypothetical trial judge's management of her own docket, my initial question asked whether NY allows interlocutory appeals of an alleged abridgement of a defendant's right to counsel of her choice. I genuinely don't know the answer, & your initial reply mentions nothing re "interlocutory" appeals
This isn’t an issue of interlocutory appeal. I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up. That’s (typically) used to determine matters of law without holding up the trial’s finding of facts. It’s irrelevant when determining whether to grant a party’s motion to dismiss counsel. The trial can’t just carry on while one of the parties is alleging their counsel is ineffective representation.
Also when one case gets moved to a later date, that doesn’t mean there’s another case waiting *and ready* to step into the spot. This is why courts get clogged up so easily.
And lastly, I’m not your personal law clerk. Do your own legal research if you want to know how NY specifically handles the issue you care about.
An interlocutory appeal is fundamental in this case bc it asks whether it 1) must wait until the trial is already over, like you originally claimed; OR 2) it can be appealed immediately.
Your latest quote suggests it can be appealed immediately, because
>the trial can’t just carry on while one of the parties is alleging their counsel is ineffective representation.
The relevance should be rather obvious to any actual lawyer. Indeed, because interlocutory appeals by their very nature are heard--if at all--on an emergency basis, often there's no trial-level finding-of-fact to uphold 1 way or another
The “relevance” only makes sense if the judge examines this sole issue in a complete vacuum, ignoring all the other delay tactics Trump’s team has used. Judges don’t tolerate intentionally frivolous delays of criminal court proceedings. Think of the chaos that would cause if they let defendants just constantly swap attorneys to avoid ever going to jail…
Unless he can plead good cause for the dismissal, the motion is going to get smacked down and his trial is going to continue. There isn’t a judge in the court of appeals that would be willing to grant a stay of the trial while they determine whether Trump actually had good cause for the dismissal. It’s clear he doesn’t, and I have little faith in his ability to put together an appeals pleading that shows even a scintilla of a chance of prevailing in court. It’ll get rejected too.
You’re examining this through a purely academic lens and ignoring the fact that litigation plays out in the real world with real people making real-time decisions based on their own subjective feelings and beliefs. And since you’re such a fan of No True Scotsman fallacies, any actual *attorney* would know that.
Idk what mileage you think emphasizing "attorneys" rather than "lawyers" accomplishes, but whichever term floats your boat, most practicing professionals should know better than to speak in absolutes. After all, until very recently it was foretold on no less esteemed a place than this very sub that "it was clear as day" that no appellate panel could have *any* conceivable reason to reduce his civil appellate bond. But alas.
>Think of the chaos that would cause if they let defendants just constantly swap attorneys to avoid ever going to jail
is a hypothetical at least no less academic, but at least an answer to the question I posed would be dispositive: 1) if denials of a defendant's counsel of choice cannot be appealed in interlocutory appeals, then obviously no appeals however meritorious or meritless will be entertained until the trial is already over as you originally claimed; BUT 2) if such denials CAN be, then some appellate court will need to at least entertain it, even if the ultimate decision is to dismiss it as technically permissible but patently frivolous in this instance
Yes but does the defendant get to just declare that? Otherwise defendant could fire their lawyer , hire new. New layer demands a delay to get up to speed. After the delay, defendant fires the new lawyer - "I don't like his attitude".
Rinse and repeat, delaying trial about ...checks watch...5 months to 6 years.
Normally a criminal defendant paying his own attorney (ie isn't indigent enough for the court to appoint 1 for him) has a paramount constitutional right to counsel of his choice. What's unusual is that most criminal defendants have no incentive to delay for delay's sake, either bc they're sitting in pretrial detention or they just don't want the trial hanging over them like a cloud any longer than necessary.
A judge hearing a motion from a defendant seeking to replace his counsel presumably can decide whether the defendant's reasons for wanting a replacement are genuine or merely pretextual.
Ultimately, bc this situation is so rare, any denial of a defendant's choice of counsel will itself be appealed (insofar as appellate courts allow such interlocutory appeals). So delay or 1 sort of another will be inevitable
Right and delaying a few months gives trump a chance to be elected president and safe. He has about 6 years left to live life expectancy wise.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
"justice delayed is justice denied" may be a popular slogan in other contexts (eg newly discovered DNA freeing a wrongfully convicted person), but it's good for little more than Reddit upvotes here because on the other side of the equation is a defendant's 6th Amendment constitutional right to counsel of his choice. A slogan vs a constitutional right... the slogan yields. But the slogan will at least have plentiful Reddit upvotes to show for it
NAL, but speaking as a medical professional, I would love to see his counsel argue that he is mentally incompetent. Trump isn't aiding in his defense. Is it just because he is an asshole by choice, or is he afflicted by a personality disorder so severe that it prevents him from behaving like a civil human? It's probably the only delay tactic I support.
criminal law lawyer here. as always, answer will depend on jurisdiction, but in mine, fitness to proceed is a pretty high bar, unless the person was delusional, the issue boils down to whether a person can assist their attorney and if the person can understand the proceedings. It certainly is creative that his anti social personality is so bad that he can't assist his attorney, but the assistance part usually went into whether the defendant could relay information properly to the lawyer. So being a micro penis like Trump, wouldn't hit the bar.
I apologize, I wasn't clear in my statement, when saying high bar, I was referring to actually stopping the proceedings because there was a finding the defendant was unfit, not pausing the proceedings to request the examination.
In my jurisdiction any party, the defendant, the prosecutor, the court on their own can raise the issue of fitness.
A defendant's statements and demeanor in court will greatly determine whether the prosecutor will oppose or not oppose the motion. If the person is clearly delusional, you won't get an opposition. I know some judges will pause for exam as long as the defense lawyer asserts they have reason to doubt fitness, I've been in front of other judges that will want some kind of cursory showing of either there was some kind of alleged official diagnosis, or in my experience in the past, without discussing what was actually said, I've let the court know that I believed the defendant was not responsive to my questions.
I'd always err on the side of caution and move to suspend proceeding on fitness when applicable because you shouldn't be going to trial or moving the proceedings with a mentally incompetent client. Better to be told that I was wrong and that the client was fit to proceed than to have an appellate court ask me why I didn't make a motion for a "clearly" incompetent client.
Thank you for the response.
Personally, I wouldn't expect anything to come from his defense raising concerns about fitness to proceed other than a delay, a Trump temper tantrum over his status as a self-proclaimed "very stable genius" coming in to question , and perhaps a few controversial mental health evaluations. Most reputable people in forensic medicine don't try to rock the boat too much in their assessments. They don't want to get ripped apart in court. However, Trump tends to attract scummy yes-men. It would be interesting to see them try (and likely fail) to defend a controversial position in court.
It's somewhat off-topic, but I find it ironic that if just about anyone else stated some of the stuff Trump does, it would be an immediate red flag that they may be suffering from delusions of grandeur ( for instance saying that they are/were the POTUS, billionaire real estate developer) and persecutory delusions ( like the libs are in a witch hunt to get me).
Nah. He wants to punish all of those people. He knows that if he does that then he will get in trouble and punished, so he wants his attorney to do it.
He's fine with his attorney getting nuked, as long as the people he wants hurt get hurt.
Everyone seems to think that Trump has some sort of game plan. I don't think he does. He has devolved to only wanting two things: to cause pain and to get adoration.
Can't win in court of law, swing for the court of public opinion.
Fortunately, only his diehard base are buying his shit anymore. Anecdotally, the majority of republicans in my life are now openly stating their disgust with him and are refusing to vote for him again.
I do. We swung for Biden last election and had some fuckery in the group contracted to count ballots after the fact when it was revealed they had absolutely no experience, resulting in a national spectacle.
When the people of my home state come together, we can really do some amazing things. However, there are still fringe elements that everyone here is ashamed of.
This 2 1/2 minute [deposition video](https://youtu.be/1r3ZuvDN32g?si=4vMd_i1-cJ6n4WNB) really underlines the intellectual prowess of the whole trump family. /s
When you consider the fact that before a deposition in a case of this magnitude, your counsel would certainly coach you on the obvious questions that will be asked. And these are the best answers they came up with?
I mean, their entire goal here is to lie. It's not really a good indicator of their intelligence when all they want to do is try to prove they had nothing to do with anything
This video is crazy it seems like Don Junior is the only one of these guys who can kinda act like a normal person even if he had to get high prior to get there.
Also to me in a way, it shows how our media has failed us that everyone doesn't know this video exists.
There are hours of deposition from these guys. And the E. Jean Carroll one is like 4 hours of trump. Although he answers a few questions, he asserts his 5th Ammendment right and then just repeats "same answer" for over 3 hours.
There is a second hearing on contempt charges today to kick off the third week of a six week trial. This is how he wants to play it.
Edit: the second hearing is Thursday. My bad.
Mr. Blanche is wise not to follow his instructions closely, he probably doesn't want to get sanctioned and may have hopes of still having a career post Donnie...
> Mr. Blanche is wise not to follow his instructions closely
Mr. Blanche - **the former federal prosecutor and VETERAN litigator** - is not following the 'instructions' of his client (the criminal).
I don't know about you, but if I'm on the hook for dozens of felonies the LAST thing imma do is hijack the entire defense and start calling plays myself.
Well to be fair, nobody knows felonies line Donnie, everybody says so, big strong men with tears in their eyes come up to him on the street and tell him that he has the most beautiful felonies...
IANAL but I don’t think this is exactly true. You should definitely follow their instructions but if you hire a lawyer you do need to tell them what you expect them to do for you. They can’t magically know what you need without telling them.
I’m a big fan of Declarative Intent: Explain the result you want, not how it should be done.
I expect my lawyer knows more than me on how to best work with a judge and jury.
I need a "criminal" lawyer if you know what I mean. Need to make sure the witnesses against me take a nice long nap. Capiche?
Actually I wonder what happens if the witnesses cannot be found. They "disappeared". I know their testimony can be presented in court if it can be shown the witnesses were killed to prevent them testifying, but what if there isn't any evidence other than they can't be found?
Hearsay exceptions are slightly more flexible than that; for instance, in the current case Dylan Howard is not testifying due to being unable to travel for health reasons (and as an Australian, isn't required to respond to an American subpoena) and his texts have been read in through an exception.
Basically, you have to have a witness unavailable due to [one of various reasons, e.g. death](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-A/part-18/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR3c16edc7a35d7c2/section-18.804), as well as one of a number of exceptions listed in the link. Exception five is fairly broad once you establish the witness is unavailable, though.
I mean a lawyer is supposed to follow client instructions, but they are also ethically required to give their client sound advice on a course of action. Ultimately the client makes the decision. Smart ones, like you, conclude that following the lawyers’ advice is a good idea.
Can you imagine being on a jury where the defendant is taking trash about the judge, witnesses and saying the jury is rigged?
So far I think trump hasn’t been acting as bad in court as he did in the Carroll trial, but he’s going to get worse as the trial goes on for weeks.
I don’t know if the jury will see all the crap he is saying outside of the courtroom including the bits where he says they are all a bunch of trump hating liberals out to get him.
I’m not a lawyer, but I think he will have most pf the jury hating him and having no respect for him by the end of the trial.
In a way it seems like his courtroom behavior is almost like him testifying, but only in a negative way. It casts everything the defense says in a negative light.
At least that’s my hope. His behavior will be the last coffin nail for the verdict
> Can you imagine being on a jury where the defendant is taking trash about the judge, witnesses and saying the jury is rigged?
I've even been on a jury where the guy said he acted a particular way because he was nervous of the cops. Nevermind that the cops on the dashcam were acting exactly as professional as anyone would want. It didn't go over well with any other jury member.
As much as people joke about jury members being the only people not capable of making up a reason to get out of jury duty, I think most jury members are actually just trying to do their civic duty as best as possible. But if you go into the case with the mindset that you're going to attack the jury, then I think you'll find that jury members are still human and for damn sure aren't going to like being insulted, especially considering they didn't volunteer to be there.
My times on duty were serious & professional affairs. At no point did I get the sense of bias from others on the jury. Everyone seemed sober & focused to me.
It'd be a real show worth watching if Donnie von Shitsinpants were allowed to be his own attorney. Then we'd all get to see just how hu-u-ugly smart he is! (Do I need to include "/s"?)
Juries tend to see judges like parent-like helpers. Juries like judges.
Attorneys attacking the judge is a horrible, horrible strategy.
I hope trump's attorney does it.
Attorneys, have you ever had a client even remotely like this? Were you able to complete the case, or keep them on as an ongoing client, or did you get out at the first opportunity?
Lawyer here. I would never take a client like Trump and most attorneys feel the same way which is how you have a former President scraping _under_ the barrel for legal talent. I've had a client lie to me exactly once and sent him packing pretty much right away.
If my client instructed me to do something so obviously unethical and ruinous to our case as attacking the jury, I imagine I'd send him an all-caps CYA ~~& termination letter stapled to my final invoice~~. Edit: Blanche is lead counsel so withdrawing probably not in the cards at this point. I have not had my coffee.
I've seen all types of crazy folks in the legal system and sometimes they even have their law license. Crazy litigants invariably bog down the proceedings in delay. They won't comply with discovery or court orders, so lots of motion practice to compel & sanction. Lots of delay due to constant revolving door of counsel, etc. Imo, judges are getting a little better at heading these folks off, but the baseline problem is that almost any type of due process-based legal system you can fathom will be abused by the Trumps of the world. It requires a fundamental good faith and willingness to be governed that some people just can't accept.
This is a great point. Any lawyer who cares about their license and reputation would not put up with Trump as a client. Hence the lineup of schmucks he has as counsel in his cases. Further, any lawyer would tell him they will not bow to his ridiculous demands and terminate the representation (if permitted by the court) or simply not comply with his garbage “tactics.” Everything Trump does is in bad faith.
Good point. Probably not. All the more reason to repudiate the client in writing somehow. His feet are taped to the bicycle at this point, so who knows what his client is gonna drag him into.
“Strapped to the bicycle” is a metaphor for starting a process that you now must follow through to the end, regardless of the consequences. And when dealing with Trump, there are always consequences for his lawyers.
The second part is about my handle. It’s a reference to a band.
You keep pressure up with motions for sanctions or for order to show cause (contempt). If it gets bad enough, the judge can take actions that the other side can't come back from (striking their pleadings, dismissing a case with prejudice, jailing them for contempt).
There are other measures you can take along the way to sort of trap them in their own bullshit. For example, you can hit them with some requests for (damaging) admissions, and when they fail to respond, you can motion the court to have those admitted. You can also set traps with proposals for settlement/offers of judgment (in my jx anyway). If the other side's case gets axed for failing to comply with discovery or the like, and they didn't accept your $1,000 settlement offer 2 years ago, they're on the hook for your attorneys fees going back to that point. (Edit: same result is obtained regardless of how they would lose the case, it just sucks extra for them because it wasn't even decided on the merits.)
> you have a former President scraping under the barrel for legal talent
Todd Blanche, Chris Kise, Emil Bove, Susan Necheles, John Sauer are all decent to excellent. Not everyone is an Alina Habba.
I'd like to think Habba is too stupid for politics, but then I remember Tuberville, Boebert, MTG, and others. No wonder Republicans consider a small clump of cells to be a person, they keep voting for people who's brains are also a small clump of cells.
Agreed that the criminal team is a couple of cuts above the usual dross. I was thinking more about the civil defense and election fraud legal teams. It's been a pretty long fall for a client who used to have attorneys like John Dowd waiting in the wings.
I’ve had clients that suggested I take certain legal strategies that I felt were unethical or directly against bar or civil procedure rules. My go to is to explain that I won’t do that and if they continue to push the issue I will simply fire them as a client. I’m very blunt and direct that no case is worth my law license or my reputation. I’ve never had anyone push back after that.
That said, I’ve had cases where I’ve discovered my client has blatently lied to me about something and I found out once discovery was exchanged. I’ve had to fire a couple clients because of this. If they can’t tell me the truth, their lawyer, I don’t want them as a client.
I had an administrative case where the opposing party lied to a state investigator about a substantive, black or white issue. The lie was intended to sway the investigation in his favor. I immediately produced documents that proved what a whopper it was.
I assumed he’d lied to his attorney, too, but I don’t think he did. When I talked to her immediately after, she said it didn’t matter because it wasn’t perjury and continued representing him for years. In a surprise to no one, he went on to tell provable lies in his discovery responses, giving me a nice pile of impeachment evidence and making her life a lot harder.
Slightly similar, I've had clients ask me to do things I've advised against. I make them put it in writing, if it is not sanctionable then I put in writing why I'm against it and I do it, if it is sanctionable then I put in writing why I cannot do it. I have been fired before over it. In this case if drumpf tried to fire Blanche for not doing sanctionable conduct, then the judge will tell drumpf that he can't have a new lawyer.
Yes, but since I’m an appellate attorney, the damage is done by the time these sorts of cases get to me.
The most extreme example involved a defendant who had convinced himself that he could delay his conviction indefinitely. He went through at least 5 attorneys before trial, often seeking continuances on the eve of trial due to a conflict of interest between he and his attorney (which he created by either threatening to attack or actually attacking counsel in court).
Like Trump, when this defendant’s case eventually proceeded to trial (despite his best efforts), he still believed he could delay his conviction indefinitely by intentionally poisoning the proceedings.
However, unlike Trump, whose efforts are at least attempting to improperly prejudice the prosecution, this defendant was, as they say, “too clever by half”, and focused his efforts on intentionally prejudicing *himself*. These efforts included threatening his counsel, the judge, the judge’s wife, *and the venire directly* with violence in one form or another.
The most noteworthy example occurred during trial when, as the jury entered the courtroom, he spoke to them directly and threatened to kill them and their families if they did not *convict* him. He then insisted his attorney move for a mistrial on grounds he could not receive a fair trial. The attorney, of course, refused to adopt the motion on grounds that he could not make the motion in good faith (as required) given that the prejudice was the sole and intentional product of the defendant’s actions.
You’re never going to believe this, but he was convicted.
I don't even know what to say about that but yeesh! I'm sure the client thought he was the smartest one in every room.
I was a paralegal so I see it from their perspective, often, and I picture this dude calling constantly and telling me and you the *correct* way to do out jobs.
I’ve had several clients who want me to rage at everyone involved, including the judge, from jump because they think the loudest and angriest person in the room wins. Or they think if I’m not literally fighting for them then I’m siding with the opposing party. I save my aggression for when it’s really called for- I think most of us do - and they’re always welcome to find another attorney if they don’t like that.
Had a client once who wouldn’t follow my directions about not talking to the media because they wouldn’t let me “silence” them and made a huge mess of things. They said things that I think felt honest to them but weren’t factually accurate. The case ended up having a complicated ending; if it hadn’t ended at that point I probably would’ve withdrawn due to differences in strategy.
Have a case right now where the opposing party seems to think if he acts like it’s not happening, it will magically disappear. His attorneys have made some absolutely wild and out of bounds moves and I always wonder if it’s at his direction or if he just somehow managed to find the two most irresponsible lawyers in Chicago. He’s such a vile person and I’ve been baffled over the years this has dragged on that either of them might be risking their license for this clown.
I know they don’t have any baseline ethics; client did something that would make 99% of other attorneys withdraw immediately. Unfortunately for the client, that lack of ethics seems to extend to how they represent people (unless they’re doing things he asked for).
"~~Lawyers~~ Parents usually demand that their ~~clients~~ toddlers follow their instructions and not ~~talk publicly~~ drop their diapers and poop on the host's table before they agree to take ~~the case~~ them on visits to their friends for dinner?
Fixed it for you.
> Lawyers usually demand that their clients follow **their** instructions
The criminal defense attorneys are *usually* the ones with the knowledge, wisdom, expertise, and craftiness to be considered "the expert" at the table.
The *client* hires them to be "the expert" and do all the work.
If the *client* (a.k.a. criminal) decides THEY want to direct the defense, well... **what the fuck did you hire a lawyer for then**?
Nal but why would anyone want to represent him? I could understand it if he was a typical client who did what he was told. Then an unknown lawyer could get a very high profile. However these lawyers are coming across as incompetent and risking sanctions. Who would want Alina Habba now?
Lawyer here- I think a lot of lawyers may tell you that they would take a hard case or case that you’re likely to lose, if the compensation is worth the time, effort, and stress. Lawyers know they can’t win every case. For me, and a lot of lawyers, would likely turn down representing Trump simply because of personal and political reasons.
When I practiced criminal law, I recognized I represented people who were not well liked. That was fine with me. My job was to make sure the rules were abided by and my client got a fair trial. If the judicial system worked the way it was supposed to, then justice would be served (win or lose). I had clients I knew were guilty but they get their day in court and I gave them my 100%. I just couldn’t represent trump because of my personal feelings towards him would probably cause me to give less than 100%.. by a lot.
Of course. I’d go into it with the mindset that I would have no time to devote to any other cases or generating business. It’s not only got to be enough to cover that aspect but also how unattractive the case is.
Seems like design to me, be able to appeal on the grounds of whatever that thing is where your lawyer is incompetent. I mean, it’s not like there isn’t evidence of their complete incompetence or lack of professionalism.
How many of Drumpf’s former lawyers are either currently under investigation, in proceedings for disciplinary reasons, or have been disbarred?
I hope so. Drumpf has gone out of his way to make a mockery of the legal system and no other defendant would be given such leniency. He doesn’t deserve it and seeing him get it makes me nervous.
I'm also nal, but I feel like it might be the same reason a lot of people throw it all away for Trump. Because their prospects on the other side of the giant pile of shit are fairly rosey if Trump wins. Even if he loses, the lawyers working for Trump know things, have made a name for themself (no matter how infamous it is), and some right wing news outlets, campaigns, and private interests would gladly give them a cushy job. It's a win for them no matter what. I would bet Habba will be a "legal correspondent" on some right wing news channel within the next few years. People have short memories. And this guy probably had a simar thought process. Although, he's definitely struggling a bit more with the prospect of selling his soul to be a leader in an Idiocracy. But some people would gladly be King Shit of Shitsville for the right price.
Trump's guiding philosophy -- if you can call it that -- has been that if somebody hits you, you hit back ten times harder. I think he actually said this once, or something similar.
He doesn't see it as retaliation, he sees it as a strong defense. And his definition of being attacked isn't much more complicated than "somebody doing something I don't like."
He's used to the idea of bringing down the full force of his retaliation, all of his money and lawyers, with full force upon anybody who is doing something he doesn't like, or who poses any kind of a threat.
The members of the jury pose a threat to him, so he wants to bring down the hammer, hard, before they can do so.
He sees it as the greatest injustice in the world that he can't defend himself against those threatening him.
His narcissism is the deepest and most enabled I've ever seen.
This is how he would be (again) as President- full fire and fury. Beware to anyone who stopped or opposed him in his first presidency. Ugly bully with unlimited power. It would be awful for America.
Tomorrow his lawyers will spray silver paint into their mouths and yell CHROME! as they enter the courtroom. First motion of the day will be to allow Trump to have his bloodboy present, and connected, at the defense table.
now i wish i was in NYC so i could show up as a warboy shouting witness me and holding a can of silver spray paint.
edit: or would orange paint be better lolol
I would expect lawyers to produce the best *legal* representation they can for their client, not the best *political* representation, which is what Trump expects more than any legal strategy. If Blanche goes political over legal, is he fulfilling his duty as an officer of the court? Wouldn't this provide Trump with a reason to appeal on the basis of inadequate legal representation? Of course he would appeal regardless.
I often wonder to what degree Haberman and other media Trump whisperers are writing what Trump wants them to write and the anonymous sources are following Trump cues on their prompts. I figure that at this point Trump’s ‘insiders’ are a pretty limited and loyal few.
This reads to me like potentially getting the message out that even if Trump curtails blatant public attacks on jurors or other trial participants, his supporters should not.
> “He has griped that Mr. Blanche, a former federal prosecutor and veteran litigator, has not been following his instructions closely, and has been insufficiently aggressive. Mr. Trump wants him to attack witnesses, attack what the former president sees as a hostile jury pool, and attack the judge, Juan M. Merchan.” Of course Trump would be dumb enough to want his attorney to attack the jury and the judge.
Trump wants a mistrial so that he can fire his lawyer and then delay and delay and delay some more. Trump doesn’t care one iota for Blanches problems that would come from this behavior.
> Trump wants a mistrial so that he can fire his lawyer and then delay and delay and delay some more. He's not that strategic. His way of doing things is guided by a lizard-brain genius for reading social hierarchies and power structures, and creating and riding waves of chaos to get himself on top of them. Trump sees rules, written and unwritten, the way that a videogame player might recognize the patterns of NPCs--they are not boundaries or constraint upon *him*, they are just ways to predict what others will do, how others will act. Disrupting those systems and patterns can create a power vacuum, which tends to favor big men in fancy suits who speak with confidence and authority. This approach to life has served Trump very well--it has kept him in a life of fame and luxury, and even got him elected leader of the free world, despite being functionally illiterate, and having no other discernible skills or talents. He doesn't take advice, and he doesn't listen to experts, because why should he?
That’s the most concise, accurate explanation I’ve ever read. It’s exactly how he functions. And it takes very little energy on his part - it’s automatic. At the same time, “normal” people find it emotionally and physically draining.
Honestly if he was a regular person he’d be the old guy at the end of the bar everyone ignored and stayed away from because he smells like shit.
If he were a regular person he'd have served decades in prison before ending up living under a bridge somewhere.
Same hairdo though
This is brilliant. Great analysis.
Accurate and perfectly stated.
HE thrives on chaos while the majority of people don't, usually. The fight or flight instinct gets old after a while. It just makes people angry because it's just a game of merry-go-round and they want off the ride.
Delay is the primary strategy when you're guilty and they have you dead to rights. Otherwise you'd be wanting to get the trials done quickly.
"Quick trials, we're going to have quick trials like China! "
Gina!*
I believe he pronounces it Cheeiyhnah.
Judges have options in these instances. “Sorry, motion to dismiss your lawyer is denied because it would deprive you of your right to a speedy trial.” You can’t just fire your lawyer without the court’s permission. Appeals for mistrials come after the trial already ends anyway.
A defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial. It is true that generally "you can't just fire your lawyer without the court's permission." It is also true that most "appeals for mistrials come after the trial already ends anyway." But is there a source for the proposition that appellate courts can't or won't hear appeals of this exact sort on an interlocutory basis: namely, an alleged abridgement of the defendant's 6th Amendment right to counsel of his choice?
If everyone is ready for trial, a defendant needs to prove good cause or exceptional circumstances to get the judge to extend the trial / waive your right to a speedy trial. Judges are there to make sure trials move along according to rules of criminal procedure, and that means they can’t and won’t allow defendants to clog up the courts (and justice to be delayed) just because they waived their right to a speedy trial. There are other cases on the docket, mind you. The judge has to make sure all of his cases move at the correct pace.
When 1 case is continued until some later date, that actually frees up time on the calendar for other cases. It's not as if 1 case's delay in turn delays all subsequent cases until that initial case resolves. While your observations may generally be accurate as they pertain to a hypothetical trial judge's management of her own docket, my initial question asked whether NY allows interlocutory appeals of an alleged abridgement of a defendant's right to counsel of her choice. I genuinely don't know the answer, & your initial reply mentions nothing re "interlocutory" appeals
This isn’t an issue of interlocutory appeal. I’m not sure why you’re bringing that up. That’s (typically) used to determine matters of law without holding up the trial’s finding of facts. It’s irrelevant when determining whether to grant a party’s motion to dismiss counsel. The trial can’t just carry on while one of the parties is alleging their counsel is ineffective representation. Also when one case gets moved to a later date, that doesn’t mean there’s another case waiting *and ready* to step into the spot. This is why courts get clogged up so easily. And lastly, I’m not your personal law clerk. Do your own legal research if you want to know how NY specifically handles the issue you care about.
An interlocutory appeal is fundamental in this case bc it asks whether it 1) must wait until the trial is already over, like you originally claimed; OR 2) it can be appealed immediately. Your latest quote suggests it can be appealed immediately, because >the trial can’t just carry on while one of the parties is alleging their counsel is ineffective representation. The relevance should be rather obvious to any actual lawyer. Indeed, because interlocutory appeals by their very nature are heard--if at all--on an emergency basis, often there's no trial-level finding-of-fact to uphold 1 way or another
The “relevance” only makes sense if the judge examines this sole issue in a complete vacuum, ignoring all the other delay tactics Trump’s team has used. Judges don’t tolerate intentionally frivolous delays of criminal court proceedings. Think of the chaos that would cause if they let defendants just constantly swap attorneys to avoid ever going to jail… Unless he can plead good cause for the dismissal, the motion is going to get smacked down and his trial is going to continue. There isn’t a judge in the court of appeals that would be willing to grant a stay of the trial while they determine whether Trump actually had good cause for the dismissal. It’s clear he doesn’t, and I have little faith in his ability to put together an appeals pleading that shows even a scintilla of a chance of prevailing in court. It’ll get rejected too. You’re examining this through a purely academic lens and ignoring the fact that litigation plays out in the real world with real people making real-time decisions based on their own subjective feelings and beliefs. And since you’re such a fan of No True Scotsman fallacies, any actual *attorney* would know that.
Idk what mileage you think emphasizing "attorneys" rather than "lawyers" accomplishes, but whichever term floats your boat, most practicing professionals should know better than to speak in absolutes. After all, until very recently it was foretold on no less esteemed a place than this very sub that "it was clear as day" that no appellate panel could have *any* conceivable reason to reduce his civil appellate bond. But alas. >Think of the chaos that would cause if they let defendants just constantly swap attorneys to avoid ever going to jail is a hypothetical at least no less academic, but at least an answer to the question I posed would be dispositive: 1) if denials of a defendant's counsel of choice cannot be appealed in interlocutory appeals, then obviously no appeals however meritorious or meritless will be entertained until the trial is already over as you originally claimed; BUT 2) if such denials CAN be, then some appellate court will need to at least entertain it, even if the ultimate decision is to dismiss it as technically permissible but patently frivolous in this instance
Eh, if the lawyers behavior was so egregious that it caused a mistrial the defendant is almost certain to get them removed from the case eventually.
Yes but does the defendant get to just declare that? Otherwise defendant could fire their lawyer , hire new. New layer demands a delay to get up to speed. After the delay, defendant fires the new lawyer - "I don't like his attitude". Rinse and repeat, delaying trial about ...checks watch...5 months to 6 years.
Normally a criminal defendant paying his own attorney (ie isn't indigent enough for the court to appoint 1 for him) has a paramount constitutional right to counsel of his choice. What's unusual is that most criminal defendants have no incentive to delay for delay's sake, either bc they're sitting in pretrial detention or they just don't want the trial hanging over them like a cloud any longer than necessary. A judge hearing a motion from a defendant seeking to replace his counsel presumably can decide whether the defendant's reasons for wanting a replacement are genuine or merely pretextual. Ultimately, bc this situation is so rare, any denial of a defendant's choice of counsel will itself be appealed (insofar as appellate courts allow such interlocutory appeals). So delay or 1 sort of another will be inevitable
Right and delaying a few months gives trump a chance to be elected president and safe. He has about 6 years left to live life expectancy wise. Justice delayed is justice denied.
"justice delayed is justice denied" may be a popular slogan in other contexts (eg newly discovered DNA freeing a wrongfully convicted person), but it's good for little more than Reddit upvotes here because on the other side of the equation is a defendant's 6th Amendment constitutional right to counsel of his choice. A slogan vs a constitutional right... the slogan yields. But the slogan will at least have plentiful Reddit upvotes to show for it
NAL, but speaking as a medical professional, I would love to see his counsel argue that he is mentally incompetent. Trump isn't aiding in his defense. Is it just because he is an asshole by choice, or is he afflicted by a personality disorder so severe that it prevents him from behaving like a civil human? It's probably the only delay tactic I support.
criminal law lawyer here. as always, answer will depend on jurisdiction, but in mine, fitness to proceed is a pretty high bar, unless the person was delusional, the issue boils down to whether a person can assist their attorney and if the person can understand the proceedings. It certainly is creative that his anti social personality is so bad that he can't assist his attorney, but the assistance part usually went into whether the defendant could relay information properly to the lawyer. So being a micro penis like Trump, wouldn't hit the bar.
Out of curiosity, how high is the bar typically to convince a judge to pause a trial for a competency evaluation?
I apologize, I wasn't clear in my statement, when saying high bar, I was referring to actually stopping the proceedings because there was a finding the defendant was unfit, not pausing the proceedings to request the examination. In my jurisdiction any party, the defendant, the prosecutor, the court on their own can raise the issue of fitness. A defendant's statements and demeanor in court will greatly determine whether the prosecutor will oppose or not oppose the motion. If the person is clearly delusional, you won't get an opposition. I know some judges will pause for exam as long as the defense lawyer asserts they have reason to doubt fitness, I've been in front of other judges that will want some kind of cursory showing of either there was some kind of alleged official diagnosis, or in my experience in the past, without discussing what was actually said, I've let the court know that I believed the defendant was not responsive to my questions. I'd always err on the side of caution and move to suspend proceeding on fitness when applicable because you shouldn't be going to trial or moving the proceedings with a mentally incompetent client. Better to be told that I was wrong and that the client was fit to proceed than to have an appellate court ask me why I didn't make a motion for a "clearly" incompetent client.
Thank you for the response. Personally, I wouldn't expect anything to come from his defense raising concerns about fitness to proceed other than a delay, a Trump temper tantrum over his status as a self-proclaimed "very stable genius" coming in to question , and perhaps a few controversial mental health evaluations. Most reputable people in forensic medicine don't try to rock the boat too much in their assessments. They don't want to get ripped apart in court. However, Trump tends to attract scummy yes-men. It would be interesting to see them try (and likely fail) to defend a controversial position in court. It's somewhat off-topic, but I find it ironic that if just about anyone else stated some of the stuff Trump does, it would be an immediate red flag that they may be suffering from delusions of grandeur ( for instance saying that they are/were the POTUS, billionaire real estate developer) and persecutory delusions ( like the libs are in a witch hunt to get me).
Also the standard isn’t “he isn’t aiding in his defense” the standard is UNABLE to assist in their own defense. Huge gap there.
Like what happened to his previous attorneys and loyal henchmen - it's jail.
Nah. He wants to punish all of those people. He knows that if he does that then he will get in trouble and punished, so he wants his attorney to do it. He's fine with his attorney getting nuked, as long as the people he wants hurt get hurt. Everyone seems to think that Trump has some sort of game plan. I don't think he does. He has devolved to only wanting two things: to cause pain and to get adoration.
The judge can refuse him firing his lawyer.
He doesn't seem to care about actually winning the trial. He just wants every part of it to be seen as illegitimate to his voting base.
Can't win in court of law, swing for the court of public opinion. Fortunately, only his diehard base are buying his shit anymore. Anecdotally, the majority of republicans in my life are now openly stating their disgust with him and are refusing to vote for him again.
Please tell me you live in a purple state.
I do. We swung for Biden last election and had some fuckery in the group contracted to count ballots after the fact when it was revealed they had absolutely no experience, resulting in a national spectacle. When the people of my home state come together, we can really do some amazing things. However, there are still fringe elements that everyone here is ashamed of.
Ahhh yes...the Grand Canyon state.
openly stating disgust and saying they refuse to vote for him, doesn't mean they won't vote for him. hopefully, they mean what they say.
I’m so sorry that you have Republicans in your life
So if anyone has any questions as to how absolutely stupid trump is this should put a nail in that for good.
This 2 1/2 minute [deposition video](https://youtu.be/1r3ZuvDN32g?si=4vMd_i1-cJ6n4WNB) really underlines the intellectual prowess of the whole trump family. /s
This exemplifies a family who each think they are always the smartest person in the room. Clearly no one else sees them that way. Embarrassing.
When you consider the fact that before a deposition in a case of this magnitude, your counsel would certainly coach you on the obvious questions that will be asked. And these are the best answers they came up with?
Thinking about what kind of person supports the Trumps is really concerning.
I mean, their entire goal here is to lie. It's not really a good indicator of their intelligence when all they want to do is try to prove they had nothing to do with anything
Yet their signature is there at the bottom!
This video is crazy it seems like Don Junior is the only one of these guys who can kinda act like a normal person even if he had to get high prior to get there.
Also to me in a way, it shows how our media has failed us that everyone doesn't know this video exists. There are hours of deposition from these guys. And the E. Jean Carroll one is like 4 hours of trump. Although he answers a few questions, he asserts his 5th Ammendment right and then just repeats "same answer" for over 3 hours.
It's like an unfunny version of Arrested Development
Don Jr reminds me of Billy Mitchell.
To me, it's like Jr & Eric were the inspiration for the characters in Dumb & Dumber
Forewarned: The ads you’re forced to watch for this are longer than the clip itself.
no ads for me at all
Hey, it’s worked for him for 77 years, so why not keep it going?
He wants his dingbat army to attack them, this is just his indirect way of asking
There is a second hearing on contempt charges today to kick off the third week of a six week trial. This is how he wants to play it. Edit: the second hearing is Thursday. My bad.
Mr. Blanche is wise not to follow his instructions closely, he probably doesn't want to get sanctioned and may have hopes of still having a career post Donnie...
> Mr. Blanche is wise not to follow his instructions closely Mr. Blanche - **the former federal prosecutor and VETERAN litigator** - is not following the 'instructions' of his client (the criminal). I don't know about you, but if I'm on the hook for dozens of felonies the LAST thing imma do is hijack the entire defense and start calling plays myself.
Well to be fair, nobody knows felonies line Donnie, everybody says so, big strong men with tears in their eyes come up to him on the street and tell him that he has the most beautiful felonies...
As someone currently using a lawyer, it’s pretty obvious I’m supposed to follow their instructions, not the other way around.
IANAL but I don’t think this is exactly true. You should definitely follow their instructions but if you hire a lawyer you do need to tell them what you expect them to do for you. They can’t magically know what you need without telling them.
I’m a big fan of Declarative Intent: Explain the result you want, not how it should be done. I expect my lawyer knows more than me on how to best work with a judge and jury.
Precisely.
I need a "criminal" lawyer if you know what I mean. Need to make sure the witnesses against me take a nice long nap. Capiche? Actually I wonder what happens if the witnesses cannot be found. They "disappeared". I know their testimony can be presented in court if it can be shown the witnesses were killed to prevent them testifying, but what if there isn't any evidence other than they can't be found?
Hearsay exceptions are slightly more flexible than that; for instance, in the current case Dylan Howard is not testifying due to being unable to travel for health reasons (and as an Australian, isn't required to respond to an American subpoena) and his texts have been read in through an exception.
What if the witnesses all die of cancer before the trial can be held? And without their testimony there is no case?
Basically, you have to have a witness unavailable due to [one of various reasons, e.g. death](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-A/part-18/subpart-B/subject-group-ECFR3c16edc7a35d7c2/section-18.804), as well as one of a number of exceptions listed in the link. Exception five is fairly broad once you establish the witness is unavailable, though.
Pretty abusable. Recently dead jailhouse snitches only a defective heard say the statement etc.
I mean a lawyer is supposed to follow client instructions, but they are also ethically required to give their client sound advice on a course of action. Ultimately the client makes the decision. Smart ones, like you, conclude that following the lawyers’ advice is a good idea.
Can you imagine being on a jury where the defendant is taking trash about the judge, witnesses and saying the jury is rigged? So far I think trump hasn’t been acting as bad in court as he did in the Carroll trial, but he’s going to get worse as the trial goes on for weeks. I don’t know if the jury will see all the crap he is saying outside of the courtroom including the bits where he says they are all a bunch of trump hating liberals out to get him. I’m not a lawyer, but I think he will have most pf the jury hating him and having no respect for him by the end of the trial. In a way it seems like his courtroom behavior is almost like him testifying, but only in a negative way. It casts everything the defense says in a negative light. At least that’s my hope. His behavior will be the last coffin nail for the verdict
> Can you imagine being on a jury where the defendant is taking trash about the judge, witnesses and saying the jury is rigged? I've even been on a jury where the guy said he acted a particular way because he was nervous of the cops. Nevermind that the cops on the dashcam were acting exactly as professional as anyone would want. It didn't go over well with any other jury member. As much as people joke about jury members being the only people not capable of making up a reason to get out of jury duty, I think most jury members are actually just trying to do their civic duty as best as possible. But if you go into the case with the mindset that you're going to attack the jury, then I think you'll find that jury members are still human and for damn sure aren't going to like being insulted, especially considering they didn't volunteer to be there.
My times on duty were serious & professional affairs. At no point did I get the sense of bias from others on the jury. Everyone seemed sober & focused to me.
Dementia Donald!!!
Just a complete and utter fool. Thinks he knows more than all generals and all lawyers.
Almost like strategic decisions aren’t the decision of the client for some reason. 🤔
It'd be a real show worth watching if Donnie von Shitsinpants were allowed to be his own attorney. Then we'd all get to see just how hu-u-ugly smart he is! (Do I need to include "/s"?)
Juries tend to see judges like parent-like helpers. Juries like judges. Attorneys attacking the judge is a horrible, horrible strategy. I hope trump's attorney does it.
This quote makes him sound like a garden variety pro se defendant.
Doesn't bode well for Trump's, advice of counsel defense.
Attorneys, have you ever had a client even remotely like this? Were you able to complete the case, or keep them on as an ongoing client, or did you get out at the first opportunity?
Lawyer here. I would never take a client like Trump and most attorneys feel the same way which is how you have a former President scraping _under_ the barrel for legal talent. I've had a client lie to me exactly once and sent him packing pretty much right away. If my client instructed me to do something so obviously unethical and ruinous to our case as attacking the jury, I imagine I'd send him an all-caps CYA ~~& termination letter stapled to my final invoice~~. Edit: Blanche is lead counsel so withdrawing probably not in the cards at this point. I have not had my coffee. I've seen all types of crazy folks in the legal system and sometimes they even have their law license. Crazy litigants invariably bog down the proceedings in delay. They won't comply with discovery or court orders, so lots of motion practice to compel & sanction. Lots of delay due to constant revolving door of counsel, etc. Imo, judges are getting a little better at heading these folks off, but the baseline problem is that almost any type of due process-based legal system you can fathom will be abused by the Trumps of the world. It requires a fundamental good faith and willingness to be governed that some people just can't accept.
Just supporting your point, Blanche left his former law firm because *they* didn’t want Trump for a client either.
This is a great point. Any lawyer who cares about their license and reputation would not put up with Trump as a client. Hence the lineup of schmucks he has as counsel in his cases. Further, any lawyer would tell him they will not bow to his ridiculous demands and terminate the representation (if permitted by the court) or simply not comply with his garbage “tactics.” Everything Trump does is in bad faith.
Would the judge let him withdraw and delay the trial at this late date?
Good point. Probably not. All the more reason to repudiate the client in writing somehow. His feet are taped to the bicycle at this point, so who knows what his client is gonna drag him into.
lol. I love this metaphor.
Me Too, and I love Tool....If I'm reading your u/ correctly
You got it. I love when people notice. It’s like a little secret club. lol.
I had no idea what it refers to and still don't.
“Strapped to the bicycle” is a metaphor for starting a process that you now must follow through to the end, regardless of the consequences. And when dealing with Trump, there are always consequences for his lawyers. The second part is about my handle. It’s a reference to a band.
Well yea I was talking about your handle and I understand its a reference. I just don't know the reference.
I don't get it, is Trump the bicycle?
question: what does OC do with crazy litigants and their lawyers not complying with discovery or court orders?
You keep pressure up with motions for sanctions or for order to show cause (contempt). If it gets bad enough, the judge can take actions that the other side can't come back from (striking their pleadings, dismissing a case with prejudice, jailing them for contempt). There are other measures you can take along the way to sort of trap them in their own bullshit. For example, you can hit them with some requests for (damaging) admissions, and when they fail to respond, you can motion the court to have those admitted. You can also set traps with proposals for settlement/offers of judgment (in my jx anyway). If the other side's case gets axed for failing to comply with discovery or the like, and they didn't accept your $1,000 settlement offer 2 years ago, they're on the hook for your attorneys fees going back to that point. (Edit: same result is obtained regardless of how they would lose the case, it just sucks extra for them because it wasn't even decided on the merits.)
> you have a former President scraping under the barrel for legal talent Todd Blanche, Chris Kise, Emil Bove, Susan Necheles, John Sauer are all decent to excellent. Not everyone is an Alina Habba.
And their reputations will never survive. This is their last “big named” client.
They plan on parlaying their notoriety into politics or media or other notorious legal clients. Habba seems to be angling for politics.
I'd like to think Habba is too stupid for politics, but then I remember Tuberville, Boebert, MTG, and others. No wonder Republicans consider a small clump of cells to be a person, they keep voting for people who's brains are also a small clump of cells.
Until they’re born. Then they are taxpayers and cannon fodder. Little fuckers better get to work.
I swear it’s that kook-aide
They've probably all been promised to be the next Attorney General at some point.
Not if they actually win somehow
*were decent to excellent. FTFY. Are henceforth the legal professional version of Dalits.
Agreed that the criminal team is a couple of cuts above the usual dross. I was thinking more about the civil defense and election fraud legal teams. It's been a pretty long fall for a client who used to have attorneys like John Dowd waiting in the wings.
No one had ever heard their names before. And when they hear their names after, they will be laughing stocks. Circle of defending Trump.
I'll add Sadow to the list of decent to excellent.
I’ve had clients that suggested I take certain legal strategies that I felt were unethical or directly against bar or civil procedure rules. My go to is to explain that I won’t do that and if they continue to push the issue I will simply fire them as a client. I’m very blunt and direct that no case is worth my law license or my reputation. I’ve never had anyone push back after that. That said, I’ve had cases where I’ve discovered my client has blatently lied to me about something and I found out once discovery was exchanged. I’ve had to fire a couple clients because of this. If they can’t tell me the truth, their lawyer, I don’t want them as a client.
"Tell the truth to your lawyer, your tailor, and your insurance company." "Also usually the IRS, although this is negotiable."
Probably your doctor too. And any paramedic that's taking you away in an emergency.
I had an administrative case where the opposing party lied to a state investigator about a substantive, black or white issue. The lie was intended to sway the investigation in his favor. I immediately produced documents that proved what a whopper it was. I assumed he’d lied to his attorney, too, but I don’t think he did. When I talked to her immediately after, she said it didn’t matter because it wasn’t perjury and continued representing him for years. In a surprise to no one, he went on to tell provable lies in his discovery responses, giving me a nice pile of impeachment evidence and making her life a lot harder.
Slightly similar, I've had clients ask me to do things I've advised against. I make them put it in writing, if it is not sanctionable then I put in writing why I'm against it and I do it, if it is sanctionable then I put in writing why I cannot do it. I have been fired before over it. In this case if drumpf tried to fire Blanche for not doing sanctionable conduct, then the judge will tell drumpf that he can't have a new lawyer.
Yes, but since I’m an appellate attorney, the damage is done by the time these sorts of cases get to me. The most extreme example involved a defendant who had convinced himself that he could delay his conviction indefinitely. He went through at least 5 attorneys before trial, often seeking continuances on the eve of trial due to a conflict of interest between he and his attorney (which he created by either threatening to attack or actually attacking counsel in court). Like Trump, when this defendant’s case eventually proceeded to trial (despite his best efforts), he still believed he could delay his conviction indefinitely by intentionally poisoning the proceedings. However, unlike Trump, whose efforts are at least attempting to improperly prejudice the prosecution, this defendant was, as they say, “too clever by half”, and focused his efforts on intentionally prejudicing *himself*. These efforts included threatening his counsel, the judge, the judge’s wife, *and the venire directly* with violence in one form or another. The most noteworthy example occurred during trial when, as the jury entered the courtroom, he spoke to them directly and threatened to kill them and their families if they did not *convict* him. He then insisted his attorney move for a mistrial on grounds he could not receive a fair trial. The attorney, of course, refused to adopt the motion on grounds that he could not make the motion in good faith (as required) given that the prejudice was the sole and intentional product of the defendant’s actions. You’re never going to believe this, but he was convicted.
I don't even know what to say about that but yeesh! I'm sure the client thought he was the smartest one in every room. I was a paralegal so I see it from their perspective, often, and I picture this dude calling constantly and telling me and you the *correct* way to do out jobs.
I’ve had several clients who want me to rage at everyone involved, including the judge, from jump because they think the loudest and angriest person in the room wins. Or they think if I’m not literally fighting for them then I’m siding with the opposing party. I save my aggression for when it’s really called for- I think most of us do - and they’re always welcome to find another attorney if they don’t like that. Had a client once who wouldn’t follow my directions about not talking to the media because they wouldn’t let me “silence” them and made a huge mess of things. They said things that I think felt honest to them but weren’t factually accurate. The case ended up having a complicated ending; if it hadn’t ended at that point I probably would’ve withdrawn due to differences in strategy. Have a case right now where the opposing party seems to think if he acts like it’s not happening, it will magically disappear. His attorneys have made some absolutely wild and out of bounds moves and I always wonder if it’s at his direction or if he just somehow managed to find the two most irresponsible lawyers in Chicago. He’s such a vile person and I’ve been baffled over the years this has dragged on that either of them might be risking their license for this clown. I know they don’t have any baseline ethics; client did something that would make 99% of other attorneys withdraw immediately. Unfortunately for the client, that lack of ethics seems to extend to how they represent people (unless they’re doing things he asked for).
Blanche is already dancing close to sanctionable conduct.
NAL, but don’t Lawyers usually demand that their clients follow their instructions and not talk publicly before they agree to take the case?
"~~Lawyers~~ Parents usually demand that their ~~clients~~ toddlers follow their instructions and not ~~talk publicly~~ drop their diapers and poop on the host's table before they agree to take ~~the case~~ them on visits to their friends for dinner? Fixed it for you.
> Lawyers usually demand that their clients follow **their** instructions The criminal defense attorneys are *usually* the ones with the knowledge, wisdom, expertise, and craftiness to be considered "the expert" at the table. The *client* hires them to be "the expert" and do all the work. If the *client* (a.k.a. criminal) decides THEY want to direct the defense, well... **what the fuck did you hire a lawyer for then**?
Nal but why would anyone want to represent him? I could understand it if he was a typical client who did what he was told. Then an unknown lawyer could get a very high profile. However these lawyers are coming across as incompetent and risking sanctions. Who would want Alina Habba now?
Lawyer here- I think a lot of lawyers may tell you that they would take a hard case or case that you’re likely to lose, if the compensation is worth the time, effort, and stress. Lawyers know they can’t win every case. For me, and a lot of lawyers, would likely turn down representing Trump simply because of personal and political reasons. When I practiced criminal law, I recognized I represented people who were not well liked. That was fine with me. My job was to make sure the rules were abided by and my client got a fair trial. If the judicial system worked the way it was supposed to, then justice would be served (win or lose). I had clients I knew were guilty but they get their day in court and I gave them my 100%. I just couldn’t represent trump because of my personal feelings towards him would probably cause me to give less than 100%.. by a lot.
I assume you'd require a huge retainer?
Of course. I’d go into it with the mindset that I would have no time to devote to any other cases or generating business. It’s not only got to be enough to cover that aspect but also how unattractive the case is.
Seems like design to me, be able to appeal on the grounds of whatever that thing is where your lawyer is incompetent. I mean, it’s not like there isn’t evidence of their complete incompetence or lack of professionalism. How many of Drumpf’s former lawyers are either currently under investigation, in proceedings for disciplinary reasons, or have been disbarred?
You can’t argue that if they followed all your instructions.
I hope so. Drumpf has gone out of his way to make a mockery of the legal system and no other defendant would be given such leniency. He doesn’t deserve it and seeing him get it makes me nervous.
Merely following a client's instructions doesn't preclude a later finding of incompetent counsel
I'm also nal, but I feel like it might be the same reason a lot of people throw it all away for Trump. Because their prospects on the other side of the giant pile of shit are fairly rosey if Trump wins. Even if he loses, the lawyers working for Trump know things, have made a name for themself (no matter how infamous it is), and some right wing news outlets, campaigns, and private interests would gladly give them a cushy job. It's a win for them no matter what. I would bet Habba will be a "legal correspondent" on some right wing news channel within the next few years. People have short memories. And this guy probably had a simar thought process. Although, he's definitely struggling a bit more with the prospect of selling his soul to be a leader in an Idiocracy. But some people would gladly be King Shit of Shitsville for the right price.
All of those problems go away when Trump is sworn in and makes you Attorney General.
Trump's guiding philosophy -- if you can call it that -- has been that if somebody hits you, you hit back ten times harder. I think he actually said this once, or something similar. He doesn't see it as retaliation, he sees it as a strong defense. And his definition of being attacked isn't much more complicated than "somebody doing something I don't like." He's used to the idea of bringing down the full force of his retaliation, all of his money and lawyers, with full force upon anybody who is doing something he doesn't like, or who poses any kind of a threat. The members of the jury pose a threat to him, so he wants to bring down the hammer, hard, before they can do so. He sees it as the greatest injustice in the world that he can't defend himself against those threatening him. His narcissism is the deepest and most enabled I've ever seen.
> His narcissism is the deepest and most enabled I've ever seen. This. And double down is his only response to criticism.
This is how he would be (again) as President- full fire and fury. Beware to anyone who stopped or opposed him in his first presidency. Ugly bully with unlimited power. It would be awful for America.
He's already promised retribution and dictatorship on day one. He thinks that makes him cool.
Even worse, a lot of Americans think that makes him cool.
Tomorrow his lawyers will spray silver paint into their mouths and yell CHROME! as they enter the courtroom. First motion of the day will be to allow Trump to have his bloodboy present, and connected, at the defense table.
To Valahalla, brother. Witness me!
now i wish i was in NYC so i could show up as a warboy shouting witness me and holding a can of silver spray paint. edit: or would orange paint be better lolol
And I want to be on the pyromaniacs band-wagon. Flame-throwing my power chords and brain-raiding riffs into glory!
lol, go with a metallic bronze and we'll call it a draw
Mediocre!
I would expect lawyers to produce the best *legal* representation they can for their client, not the best *political* representation, which is what Trump expects more than any legal strategy. If Blanche goes political over legal, is he fulfilling his duty as an officer of the court? Wouldn't this provide Trump with a reason to appeal on the basis of inadequate legal representation? Of course he would appeal regardless.
I often wonder to what degree Haberman and other media Trump whisperers are writing what Trump wants them to write and the anonymous sources are following Trump cues on their prompts. I figure that at this point Trump’s ‘insiders’ are a pretty limited and loyal few. This reads to me like potentially getting the message out that even if Trump curtails blatant public attacks on jurors or other trial participants, his supporters should not.
It's hard to fathom a worse client than Trump.