Not yet discussed: why is it so bad to tell your story in public? The defense lawyer wants to remain silent and "put the government to its proof", which it may not be able to do. But when the defendant is an active politician, he may see the support he can raise as just as effective as the presumption of innocence. If the press is allowed to go on declaring his guilt day after day, that may affect the court proceedings. There's always jury nullification, you know.
My post was entirely in jest, but if you want my two cents, the reason you don't want to tell your story in public is the same reasons every lawyer tells you not to talk to the police/prosecutor - you are volunteering additional information and evidence that the prosecutor can and will use against you which they otherwise have no way of obtaining - your own statements about the matter.
If you did want to put all your eggs into jury nullification, I suppose Trump's conduct would be the best way to do it - spend your whole time confessing to the crime but maintaining that you shouldn't be punished for it. Even if you can't get all jurors to acquit you, you only need one person to have drank the kool-aid and force a split verdict / mistrial, by which point the DOJ may be reluctant to re-try the case.
If that's the strategy, then the most important part is going to be the jury selection process, where the prosecutors will need to be highly vigilant on weeding out those who might judge based on politics rather than the law.
Well, I knew you were kidding, but this seemed like a good place to stick my comment in, since it was on the same subject. Trump probably said all the same stuff to the 85 witnesses whose identities we may or may not know soon.
I respectfully request at least 15 minutes of Ken discussing S2E2 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and his view of the Starfleet Code of Justice. Please bring in a UCMJ specialist as needed.
I lived in Ft Pierce in the 1990’s, then moved 20 minutes North to Vero Beach. FP, is a haven for drugs, and pick up trucks. Vero Beach, has a large working class, but also has very wealthy communities along the beach. Should be interesting.
$5000 fine and a note on their permanent record. Got off lightly, all things considered. However, it sets up their clients to go after them. And, I may be mistaken but forging a public notary endorsement is a criminal offense and I think the state of NY could go after at least one of them for that. But don't quote me on this.
Not exactly about crime & punishment, but I wonder if you folks would weigh in on the “independent state legislature” decision by the Supremes, specifically the basis of the dissent by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. What was their reasoning? It couldn’t be simply partisan politics, could it?
Regarding material from classified documents being publicly known, it is against government practice to classify public knowledge (besides being ludicrous). However, it can be the case that while a public version of what is classified information exists, that the government keeps it classified to avoid confirming what was essentially a good, perhaps even somewhat informed, guess. I could see this being especially critical with regard to collection methods and intelligence sources. The "Lone Gunmen" newspaper may speculate that the assistant janitor at the Russian embassy is a spy, but that does not declassify that bit of knowledge or reduce its potential damage to the country if confirmed by the release of a valid source document.
I figured I'd avoid the RICOHotline and just throw this here:
In a new chapter of the "Rust" saga, ABC News is reporting that new charges related to tampering with evidence, apparently related to narcotics, have been filed against the film's armorer:
I remember the rigorous amount of scrutiny the guy behind the counter invested into drug histories before handing out handguns to everyone waiting in line...
I would assume part of the reason the USAO is recommending probation is the nightmare that would be sending someone with a secret service detail to spend time in custody.
I can think of only one 922(g)(3) case in our district in the last 10 years - it was of the brother of someone notorious and well-known to law enforcement - found when they were executing a warrant on the family property - why subject yourself to the hassle of that statute (vague, potentially unconstitutional, potentially violative of Bruen) when you could just go prosecute a nice 922(g)(1) instead?
Goat scream is great but I'd have loved the Whillhelm scream.
We could establish a whole new system to replace Ken's most common responses with famous screams:
"Don't communicate over [latest medium] about your crimes": Goat scream
"It's not RICO": Wilhelm scream
"No, [person] is not a good lawyer": McCauley Culkin Home Alone scream
"Private companies are entitled to restrict speech without offending the First Amendment": Shelley Duvall from the Shining scream
"That statement is an obvious statement of opinion and therefore is protected by the First Amendment": Godfather horse head scream
"Taint Team": Braveheart "Freedom" scream
Not yet discussed: why is it so bad to tell your story in public? The defense lawyer wants to remain silent and "put the government to its proof", which it may not be able to do. But when the defendant is an active politician, he may see the support he can raise as just as effective as the presumption of innocence. If the press is allowed to go on declaring his guilt day after day, that may affect the court proceedings. There's always jury nullification, you know.
My post was entirely in jest, but if you want my two cents, the reason you don't want to tell your story in public is the same reasons every lawyer tells you not to talk to the police/prosecutor - you are volunteering additional information and evidence that the prosecutor can and will use against you which they otherwise have no way of obtaining - your own statements about the matter.
If you did want to put all your eggs into jury nullification, I suppose Trump's conduct would be the best way to do it - spend your whole time confessing to the crime but maintaining that you shouldn't be punished for it. Even if you can't get all jurors to acquit you, you only need one person to have drank the kool-aid and force a split verdict / mistrial, by which point the DOJ may be reluctant to re-try the case.
If that's the strategy, then the most important part is going to be the jury selection process, where the prosecutors will need to be highly vigilant on weeding out those who might judge based on politics rather than the law.
Well, I knew you were kidding, but this seemed like a good place to stick my comment in, since it was on the same subject. Trump probably said all the same stuff to the 85 witnesses whose identities we may or may not know soon.
Whenever I listen to this podcast I end up feeling extremely grateful for being well prepared for legal situations I hope I never find myself in.
But what if the goat was screaming ironically?
I'm thinking the podcast should be renamed "Serious places where admitting to crimes can get you in big Trouble."
I respectfully request at least 15 minutes of Ken discussing S2E2 of Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and his view of the Starfleet Code of Justice. Please bring in a UCMJ specialist as needed.
Seconded!
My Strong Opinions, shaped by my nonlawyer’s butterbar opinions from service 30ya, are in the comments to Zack Handlen’s review in Episodic Medium.
Are there any plans to discuss the growing scandal among Supreme Court Justices?
I lived in Ft Pierce in the 1990’s, then moved 20 minutes North to Vero Beach. FP, is a haven for drugs, and pick up trucks. Vero Beach, has a large working class, but also has very wealthy communities along the beach. Should be interesting.
Did you just say that Fort Pierce is a haven for pickup trucks? That might be my new favorite comment on here.
lol 😂 When I lived there, it was known as the “Arm pit of Florida”. I don’t believe things have improved much.
I always thought Tallahassee was the armpit. Sometimes I'm too literal.
Good news. ChatGPT lawyer sanctions order is in:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368/gov.uscourts.nysd.575368.54.0.pdf
I am disappointed that the judge passed on the opportunity to use the phrase "legalistic argle-bargle."
Can someone provide a little TLDR for the non-lawyers in the crowd?
$5000 fine and a note on their permanent record. Got off lightly, all things considered. However, it sets up their clients to go after them. And, I may be mistaken but forging a public notary endorsement is a criminal offense and I think the state of NY could go after at least one of them for that. But don't quote me on this.
Thank you!
“Truth” - (Although as a public defender my clients rarely have television interviews or write autobiographies, but good advice nonetheless :)
Not exactly about crime & punishment, but I wonder if you folks would weigh in on the “independent state legislature” decision by the Supremes, specifically the basis of the dissent by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. What was their reasoning? It couldn’t be simply partisan politics, could it?
Regarding material from classified documents being publicly known, it is against government practice to classify public knowledge (besides being ludicrous). However, it can be the case that while a public version of what is classified information exists, that the government keeps it classified to avoid confirming what was essentially a good, perhaps even somewhat informed, guess. I could see this being especially critical with regard to collection methods and intelligence sources. The "Lone Gunmen" newspaper may speculate that the assistant janitor at the Russian embassy is a spy, but that does not declassify that bit of knowledge or reduce its potential damage to the country if confirmed by the release of a valid source document.
I figured I'd avoid the RICOHotline and just throw this here:
In a new chapter of the "Rust" saga, ABC News is reporting that new charges related to tampering with evidence, apparently related to narcotics, have been filed against the film's armorer:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/rust-armorer-hannah-gutierrez-reed-tampering-with-evidence/story?id=100319253&cid=social_twitter_abcn
I remember the rigorous amount of scrutiny the guy behind the counter invested into drug histories before handing out handguns to everyone waiting in line...
I would assume part of the reason the USAO is recommending probation is the nightmare that would be sending someone with a secret service detail to spend time in custody.
At worst I would expect home confinement.
Josh... Hunter didn't "not pay" the taxes. He paid them late, which still has legal consequences but not the same, and also worth the nuance.
I can think of only one 922(g)(3) case in our district in the last 10 years - it was of the brother of someone notorious and well-known to law enforcement - found when they were executing a warrant on the family property - why subject yourself to the hassle of that statute (vague, potentially unconstitutional, potentially violative of Bruen) when you could just go prosecute a nice 922(g)(1) instead?