Really really loved the cross-exam from Mitchell Epner. You could play it for a trial practice class as an example of what to do: leading questions, one fact per question, nicely organized, drawing out useful facts, not arguing with the witness or trying to get the witness to agree with your point. It's unflashy but hard to do well, and this was *chef's kiss*
Not sure where we ask questions for this week's episode, so if I'm doing it wrong, feel free to correct me as harshly as necessary.
But regarding the E. Jean Carroll verdict, how could the jury find Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse? I can guess about the elements, I suppose, but is there something I'm missing about why this is a plausible verdict, factually? I'm not familiar with New York law and couldn't find the jury instructions after a brief search. Great show last time, though!
I came by to see if the podcast was delayed by the Rudy Giuliani filing. Perhaps the Serious Trouble team should have a New Year's party pod featuring all the superceded incitements.
Were I the ADA, I’d dispose of Mitch’s “improved” cross-x by asking Ms. Carroll on redirect whether Roger Ailes had, in fact, raped her? I would ask if her if she would allege rape that hadn’t happened?
And I would suggest in closing that the implication that creative writers cannot be rape is offensive.
Technical question/suggestion: Since subscribers get a separate (secure? secret?) feed to the hoi polloi, can our feed please have a shortened versions of the podcasts that skip that subscription sales pitches?
You actually already do get this — I left this one in the episode because we wanted to highlight and thank some of you who contribute helpful and insightful things to this comments section. Feel free to skip ahead :30 a couple times — I try to time them out so that you can skip through them easily.
So, with Clarence Thomas, we now have the trips, the house, his son's tuition, and money secretly funneled to Ginni Thomas by Leo. Is this starting to get to the point where this looks corrupt to you?
I haven't been to that many lawyers' offices, but I think Ken sold himself short. His is definitely among the nicer and neater I've seen. I'll work on that poster for him...
Lots of family photos, and a surprising lack of Popehat-memes. Perhaps Ken can use the podcast money to get a classy "Keep Calm It's Not RICO" poster for his wall.
I’m feeling weak kneed and unable to start the podcast as I flashback to Professor Wright’s permanent snarl that got worse as we moved to RAP. He promised we would never understand like he did but could pass a bar question from someone who would know it no better than we would.
I'm a little surprised they went with Joe Tacopina to do the cross examination. I would think someone who fits into the "thumb-headed henchman" mold would not be your best option for cross examining an alleged rape victim.
Interesting to hear how lawyer preparation and approach to witness questioning is key to dismantling or making a case, which makes sense. I'm curious, everyone talks about how Trump would be a disaster on the witness stand since he is basically a walking random number generator of off the wall thoughts, but for most witnesses, how much prep is done or is reasonable before their testimony begins to sound stilted or rehearsed?
If Trump on the stand would be disastrous for the defense, why doesn't the prosecution call him? Not even hearing it mentioned as an idea. Is it not possible in US courts?
Instead, Carroll's team showed some devastating excerpts from his deposition.
And I assume that their closing argument will comment on the fact that Trump chose not to testify. Query whether they will be able to make reference to Trump's having continued to discuss the case from his golf course during the trial, and his having declared that he was going to come back to New York to "confront that woman" -- and then did not. Those facts are not in the trial record -- will they nevertheless be fair subject to comment in closing argument?
Not here in Ohio. We cannot subpoena a party. If you’ve not filed a cross-complaint, you’re free to show up or not. I’ve kept a couple of divorce clients out of their hearings because they were raging lunatics.
It could be, but in civil cases the jury is permitted to make a negative inference from an invocation of the 5th, and given that Trump's defense relies entirely on "no I didn't", it's hard to imagine that not going in Carrol's favor. Meanwhile, the calculus for Carrol's lawyers is that there's no value in giving Trump a second chance to ID that key photograph and risking that his lawyers manage to get him to wear his damn glasses.
Not an attorney either but while the entertainment value would be off the charts, but the risk/reward ratio doesn't seem favorable enough. What could be possibly say more damning then what was already admitted to evidence in another way save a Perry Mason confession? And that isn't likely. Meanwhile he could say things about how the Access Hollywood tape was just locker room talk and how he is only being persecuted as a famous rich man with tiny, tiny hands. So he likely wouldn't improve the case much but he could make it into a real "he said, she said" which really isn't in the best interests of Carroll. I think they were prepared to have him testify but not really eager to have him do so.
And, if you're Carroll, you probably are at least slightly concerned that a Trump embarrassed on the stand would whip up his followers even more
There’s no such thing as too much prep. The court assumes the client has been told what questions are likely, often because the client has been deposed. You want your client to have answers for obvious questions. Since Trump’s answers would be a braggadocio/lunacy combo meal, he could not be prepped.
in which we learn how many times ken can say “vitiate” in one episode
Jesus it sounds like I'm having a stroke
False advertising! This actually is not a very detailed explanation of the rule of perpetuities
Really really loved the cross-exam from Mitchell Epner. You could play it for a trial practice class as an example of what to do: leading questions, one fact per question, nicely organized, drawing out useful facts, not arguing with the witness or trying to get the witness to agree with your point. It's unflashy but hard to do well, and this was *chef's kiss*
Not sure where we ask questions for this week's episode, so if I'm doing it wrong, feel free to correct me as harshly as necessary.
But regarding the E. Jean Carroll verdict, how could the jury find Trump not liable for rape but liable for sexual abuse? I can guess about the elements, I suppose, but is there something I'm missing about why this is a plausible verdict, factually? I'm not familiar with New York law and couldn't find the jury instructions after a brief search. Great show last time, though!
So ready for the next episode between Trump and Santos. As Ken correctly predicted, always the next criminal to keep this podcast content-rich
I came by to see if the podcast was delayed by the Rudy Giuliani filing. Perhaps the Serious Trouble team should have a New Year's party pod featuring all the superceded incitements.
always here for any podcast subtitled "You Asked For It"
Great work as usual.
I have to say that I really appreciated you dropping this ep right before my wife told me to go mow the lawn.
Excellent show again.
Many times I listen while on a walk.
I have to admit I feel awkward after busting out laughing from your asides to the storyline while in a crowd waiting to cross a street.
But the content you offer makes my brief discomfort worthwhile.
WE FINALLY PERP WALKED KEN
Were I the ADA, I’d dispose of Mitch’s “improved” cross-x by asking Ms. Carroll on redirect whether Roger Ailes had, in fact, raped her? I would ask if her if she would allege rape that hadn’t happened?
And I would suggest in closing that the implication that creative writers cannot be rape is offensive.
Technical question/suggestion: Since subscribers get a separate (secure? secret?) feed to the hoi polloi, can our feed please have a shortened versions of the podcasts that skip that subscription sales pitches?
You actually already do get this — I left this one in the episode because we wanted to highlight and thank some of you who contribute helpful and insightful things to this comments section. Feel free to skip ahead :30 a couple times — I try to time them out so that you can skip through them easily.
The title itself has me so excited that I haven't hit play yet. Just savoring it
So, with Clarence Thomas, we now have the trips, the house, his son's tuition, and money secretly funneled to Ginni Thomas by Leo. Is this starting to get to the point where this looks corrupt to you?
Did anyone else find that they have an with an irresistible curiosity about Ken’s office? I wanted Josh to paint a picture with his words.
I haven't been to that many lawyers' offices, but I think Ken sold himself short. His is definitely among the nicer and neater I've seen. I'll work on that poster for him...
Josh posted a photo from when they recorded in Ken's office last year: https://www.joshbarro.com/p/ken-white-is-back-on-this-weeks-very
Lots of family photos, and a surprising lack of Popehat-memes. Perhaps Ken can use the podcast money to get a classy "Keep Calm It's Not RICO" poster for his wall.
send a cat pic of your choice, Ken, and any design details you'd like, I can make you one (I actually can)
I’m feeling weak kneed and unable to start the podcast as I flashback to Professor Wright’s permanent snarl that got worse as we moved to RAP. He promised we would never understand like he did but could pass a bar question from someone who would know it no better than we would.
I'm a little surprised they went with Joe Tacopina to do the cross examination. I would think someone who fits into the "thumb-headed henchman" mold would not be your best option for cross examining an alleged rape victim.
Interesting to hear how lawyer preparation and approach to witness questioning is key to dismantling or making a case, which makes sense. I'm curious, everyone talks about how Trump would be a disaster on the witness stand since he is basically a walking random number generator of off the wall thoughts, but for most witnesses, how much prep is done or is reasonable before their testimony begins to sound stilted or rehearsed?
If Trump on the stand would be disastrous for the defense, why doesn't the prosecution call him? Not even hearing it mentioned as an idea. Is it not possible in US courts?
The plaintiff could call him. They strategically chose not to.
Instead, Carroll's team showed some devastating excerpts from his deposition.
And I assume that their closing argument will comment on the fact that Trump chose not to testify. Query whether they will be able to make reference to Trump's having continued to discuss the case from his golf course during the trial, and his having declared that he was going to come back to New York to "confront that woman" -- and then did not. Those facts are not in the trial record -- will they nevertheless be fair subject to comment in closing argument?
Not here in Ohio. We cannot subpoena a party. If you’ve not filed a cross-complaint, you’re free to show up or not. I’ve kept a couple of divorce clients out of their hearings because they were raging lunatics.
Interesting thought. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that calling/forcing a Defendant to the witness stand would be sort of Fifth Amendment territory.
It could be, but in civil cases the jury is permitted to make a negative inference from an invocation of the 5th, and given that Trump's defense relies entirely on "no I didn't", it's hard to imagine that not going in Carrol's favor. Meanwhile, the calculus for Carrol's lawyers is that there's no value in giving Trump a second chance to ID that key photograph and risking that his lawyers manage to get him to wear his damn glasses.
Not an attorney either but while the entertainment value would be off the charts, but the risk/reward ratio doesn't seem favorable enough. What could be possibly say more damning then what was already admitted to evidence in another way save a Perry Mason confession? And that isn't likely. Meanwhile he could say things about how the Access Hollywood tape was just locker room talk and how he is only being persecuted as a famous rich man with tiny, tiny hands. So he likely wouldn't improve the case much but he could make it into a real "he said, she said" which really isn't in the best interests of Carroll. I think they were prepared to have him testify but not really eager to have him do so.
And, if you're Carroll, you probably are at least slightly concerned that a Trump embarrassed on the stand would whip up his followers even more
Should have said plaintiff not prosecution, for one thing!
There’s no such thing as too much prep. The court assumes the client has been told what questions are likely, often because the client has been deposed. You want your client to have answers for obvious questions. Since Trump’s answers would be a braggadocio/lunacy combo meal, he could not be prepped.