How much of it is simply due to the gradual impact over the years of the High Court’s decisions in Parker v R [1963] and Viro v R [1978], and the Privy Council (Limitations of Appeals) Act 1968‑1973.
After that time English decisions can at best have been persuasive. And the High Court was unpersuaded, quite rightly in my view, by decisions such as DPP v Smith (1961) which have also been controversial in England and Wales.
Pace Ohher, it's hard to attribute the course of action to individual cases - and probably nothing much of what we're talking about flows directly from either case. But the cumulative effect of the decisions, particularly Parker, rapidly worked its way through lower courts as well. By the time I left active practice, the stage had been reached that reliance upon English cases post-WW II was almost unheard of.
The comments in Parker were (with respect) clearly correct. Our lecturers told stories of ashen-faced Law Lords, knocked aback by the strength and validity of the comments, making their way around corridors in Westminster looking for support and strong cups of tea.
The Special Counsel's office has responded [PDF] to Trump's (and Nauta's) request for a lengthy postponement of the documents trial.
The response is full of barely concealed sarcasm, but the arguments boil down to the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, the Presidential Records Act is not a get out of jail free card when it comes to national security documents, that this argument isn't "novel" in the legal sense of the term, and that people with busy schedules don't get to delay the court to accommodate themselves.
Finally, the demands of Defendants’ professional schedules do not provide a basis to delay trial in this case. Many indicted defendants have demanding jobs that require a considerable amount of their time and energy, or a significant amount of travel. The Speedy Trial Act contemplates no such factor as a basis for a continuance, and the Court should not indulge it here.
The Defendants also contend that counsel’s trial schedules “make it nearly impossible to prepare for this trial by December 2023.” Resp. at 10. But nothing about defense counsel’s trial schedules justifies the extraordinary continuance they seek. And in any event, “[it] takes more than counsel’s claim of a crowded schedule to carry [the] burden” of justifying a continuance, since a court’s schedule “should not be subordinated to the schedules of the lawyers that appear before it.”United States v. Hanhardt, 156 F. Supp. 2d 988, 999 (N.D. Ill. 2001); see United States v. DeCastro-Font, 583 F. Supp. 2d 243, 246 (D.P.R. 2008) (“[T]his Court deems defense counsel’s pre-existing trial schedule insufficient justification for granting a continuance in this case.”).
"The Defendants also contend that counsel’s trial schedules “make it nearly impossible to prepare for this trial by December 2023.” Resp. at 10. But nothing about defense counsel’s trial schedules justifies the extraordinary continuance they seek. And in any event, “[it] takes more than counsel’s claim of a crowded schedule to carry [the] burden” of justifying a continuance, since a court’s schedule “should not be subordinated to the schedules of the lawyers that appear before it.”
Counsel should not accept a brief if prior commitments will prevent counsel spending the necessary time on preparation and at the hearing. That certainly is the rule here and one that I followed for almost 50 years practice.
Attorneys in the US don’t “accept a brief”, they “take a case.” But yes, it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to, or for which timing conflicts exist.
Attorneys in the US don’t “accept a brief”, they “take a case.” But yes, it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to, or for which timing conflicts exist.
Attorneys in the US don’t “accept a brief”, they “take a case.” But yes, it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to, or for which timing conflicts exist.
Attorneys in the US don’t “accept a brief”, they “take a case.” But yes, it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to, or for which timing conflicts exist.
. . . it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to . . .]
. . . what other kind of attorney can be expected to voluntarily take on this particular client?
Lawyers who are True Believers? Lawyers who have big enough egos to think they’ll be the ones to control Trump, or that this is the case that will make their reputation? Lawyers who think that establishing their party loyalty will help them in some way, like a judicial appointment?
. . . it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to . . .]
. . . what other kind of attorney can be expected to voluntarily take on this particular client?
The rule here is that counsel must accept a brief if it is in counsel's area of practice and (as I said before) counsel has (i) sufficient time to prepare it, (ii) a suitable fee is offered and and (iii) counsel is free on the day for which the matter is listed. So had I been offered a brief to appear for an accused charged with a break, enter and steal, I could legitimately decline it on the basis that I'd not appeared in such a matter for almost 50 years. No counsel who regularly appeared in criminal matters generally could though. Bro James's "reputational risk" does not come into it.
Here, in England and Wales, where there is a split profession, that rule applies to barristers, counsel, but not to solicitors. I don’t know what the rules are in America or whether they differ between states.
In theory, the profession is in theory no longer split in any of the States, but the rule still applies in my State to those who practise at the Bar. I am not sure of the position in other States.
. . . it’s generally unethical/unprofessional, absent compelling circumstances, to take a case that an attorney can’t devote necessary time to . . .]
. . . what other kind of attorney can be expected to voluntarily take on this particular client?
The rule here is that counsel must accept a brief if it is in counsel's area of practice and (as I said before) counsel has (i) sufficient time to prepare it, (ii) a suitable fee is offered and and (iii) counsel is free on the day for which the matter is listed.
That is not the rule anywhere in the US that I’m aware of, nor does the prong of “counsel is free on the day the case is listed” generally fit with how things are done here. Again, the concept of “accepting a brief” is literally a foreign concept here.
Here, in England and Wales, where there is a split profession, that rule applies to barristers, counsel, but not to solicitors. I don’t know what the rules are in America or whether they differ between states.
The arrangement of a split legal profession disappeared in the US a long time ago. There are no US states that maintain the distinction.
And your system seems to work for you, and ours does for us. There were amendments to legislation in my State about 30 years ago to merge the branches of the profession, but so far the merger is one on paper only; solicitors had always had a right of audience even if they rarely exercised it. It did work for a while in the smaller States, but in the last 30 years or so there have in practice been changes there. I much preferred not to accept direct instructions from a client, but would do so provided that the instructions to me came from a solicitor employed by the client.
Is there anything this sticky-fingered orange goon won't try to steal?
Israel briefly lent the U.S. treasured antiquities in 2019. They're now reportedly at Trump's Mar-a-Lago.
Boxes full of classified U.S. government documents weren't the only items that improperly wound up at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate after he left office, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported Tuesday. Unlike with the government secrets, though, it isn't clear how antiquities belonging to Israel ended up at Trump's Florida club, or whether Trump even knows they are there. Efforts by senior Israeli officials to retrieve the national treasures have so far been unsuccessful.
The Israeli antiquities include ancient ceramic candles that were lent to the U.S. from Israel's national treasures collection in 2019 for a Hanukkah candle-lighting event at the White House, Haaretz reported. Israel Hasson, director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority at the time, approved the loan on the condition they be returned within weeks.
The article is trying very hard not to draw obvious conclusions from known facts (e.g. "it isn't clear how antiquities belonging to Israel ended up at Trump's Florida club", etc.). I'm not sure "I'm just holding this for a friend" is any more convincing when it comes to antiquities than it is when it comes to a baggie of weed.
Those of you with sharp memories may remember Trump similarly looting the American embassy in Paris when he was there in 2018. Despite the fact that the items he took were replicas they're still the property of the U.S. government. I'm not sure I ever saw a follow-up as to whether they're still in government custody after Trump left office.
Anyone who had "stolen antiquities" or "diplomatic incident" on their Trump's next crime bingo card, please collect your prizes.
My guess for charges is something related to the Insurrection Act. Trump complained on Truth Social recently about being charged under the Insurrection Act, which is not a publicly known charge against him. The post was eventually edited to read "Espionage Act" instead, something we know he's been charged with violating.
Good grief. Can anyone explain to me how this penny-ante gormless birdbrain continues to have supporters/followers actually willing to do jail time for/with him (assuming at least a few of the newest charges/convictions ultimately stick, if only by the law of averages)??
It's not as though he's some slick smooth-talker or clever trickster. He's not handsome or beguiling or smart. He has all the charm of a decaying carcass, the wit of of a poop-obsessed 2-year-old, and the appeal of week-old summer roadkill. And yet somehow he manages to persuade otherwise more-or-less sensible people into doing his bidding, voting for him, and even doing jail time for attempting to keep him illegally in an office he failed to win. How in bloody hell does he pull this off?
Good grief. Can anyone explain to me how this penny-ante gormless birdbrain continues to have supporters/followers actually willing to do jail time for/with him (assuming at least a few of the newest charges/convictions ultimately stick, if only by the law of averages)??
[ Trump attorney Rudolph ] Giuliani has not received a target letter, his attorney told CNN's Paula Reid, and he does not expect to be charged after he completed a voluntary interview with special counsel investigators several weeks ago.
Good grief. Can anyone explain to me how this penny-ante gormless birdbrain continues to have supporters/followers actually willing to do jail time for/with him (assuming at least a few of the newest charges/convictions ultimately stick, if only by the law of averages)??
It's not as though he's some slick smooth-talker or clever trickster. He's not handsome or beguiling or smart. He has all the charm of a decaying carcass, the wit of of a poop-obsessed 2-year-old, and the appeal of week-old summer roadkill. And yet somehow he manages to persuade otherwise more-or-less sensible people into doing his bidding, voting for him, and even doing jail time for attempting to keep him illegally in an office he failed to win. How in bloody hell does he pull this off?
Alas,
Trump is not the only one .... in the UK we have 'em aplenty - Johnson, Rees Mogg, Farage, Braverman ... I could go on and include Sir Kid Starver et al, but it's depressing.
I read somewhere that a certain crowd of people who really should have known better chose one Barabas instead of ....
It has been another rough day for Trump with the courts.
A court turned down his request for a new trial in the E. Jean Carroll case:
"Mr. Trump's argument therefore ignores the bulk of the evidence at trial, misinterprets the jury's verdict, and (ignored) evidence of what actually occurred between Ms. Carroll and Mr. Trump," [the judge] added.
Yeah, that is pretty much Trump's Standard Operating Procedure.
Meanwhile, another NY court also rejected Trump's attempt to move the Stormy Daniels Hush Money case to federal court. Trump argued that the case should be heard in federal court because it involved his 2016 presidency and federal election law. The judge disagreed:
"The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the matter was purely a personal item of the President -- a cover-up of an embarrassing event," Hellerstein wrote in a 25-page decision.
"Hush money paid to an adult film star is not related to a President's official acts. It does not reflect in any way the color of the President's official duties."
Did he try to get it changed so a future President could give him a pardon?
My guess is that Trump wanted to change courts as a delaying tactic, something that would reset the process clock to zero. If the hush money trial were set to be heard in federal court he'd probably be arguing to have it handled in state court. There's no principle here other than "delay as long as possible".
In other news, Trump's trial for illegal possession of classified documents is now set for May 2024.
Did he try to get it changed so a future President could give him a pardon?
My guess is that Trump wanted to change courts as a delaying tactic, something that would reset the process clock to zero. If the hush money trial were set to be heard in federal court he'd probably be arguing to have it handled in state court. There's no principle here other than "delay as long as possible".
In other news, Trump's trial for illegal possession of classified documents is now set for May 2024.
I agree that he'll always use delaying tactics as it is his best hope of avoiding accountability. However, in this case, I do think it's specifically about pardon power. The chance of a New York Governor pardoning him is very slim. Next Republican president much more likely. Especially if it's him*
AFZ
*legally untested whether a President can pardon him/herself.
I have to admit Judge Cannon did the right thing in the Mar-a-Lago case (so far). To recap, Cannon wanted both sides to go to trial in August. The Defense wanted to delay the trial until after the national election. The prosecution wanted to start the trial in December. Looks like Cannon just split the difference.
True, a trial date in May will be after the primaries, but before a national convention,
Special counsel obtains thousands of documents from Rudy Giuliani team that tried to find fraud after 2020 election. I guess Rudy decided he better try and protect himself.
He did. He had something called a "proffer interview," if I have that right, where basically you say "I have some information for you," with the implication being, "I'm cooperating, please, don't prosecute me." Or at least, "Please don't prosecute me as hard."
Sensible... if they'll give him that much. Which I expect will depend on how much they already have from others. Can't wait too long to make that sort of deal.
NEWS - Lawyers for former President Trump have arrived at special counsel Jack Smith's offices this morning for a meeting as a potential indictment looms, sources tell me @Santucci@SooRinKimm@lauraromero1207
Trump himself is melting down on his own bespoke social media platform so something is probably up.
It's always comforting when things go as predicted. We've had the target letter, now the caterwauling. Tomorrow or Monday should see the indictment. I'll think about appropriate drinks.
The satisfying part of all this that trump hardly even needs to to prison now. The rest of his worthless existence will probably be spent in abject misery in the courts, providing entertainment for the masses, while he loses his property holdings and his lawyers bleed him dry.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment [PDF] in the documents case against Donald Trump. In addition to more charges against Trump, Mar-a-Lago maintenance staffer Carlos De Oliveira was added to the list of defendants. Details:
Prosecutors allege in the updated indictment that two Trump employees – aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira – attempted to delete security camera footage at the former president’s resort after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for it.
De Oliveira told the director of IT at the resort “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” according to the indictment.
Trump, who had already faced 37 criminal charges, was charged with one additional count of willful retention of national defense information and two additional obstruction counts.
Destruction of evidence for which you've received a subpœna seems like textbook obstruction of justice.
The satisfying part of all this that trump hardly even needs to to prison now. The rest of his worthless existence will probably be spent in abject misery in the courts, providing entertainment for the masses, while he loses his property holdings and his lawyers bleed him dry.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has filed a superseding indictment [PDF] in the documents case against Donald Trump. In addition to more charges against Trump, Mar-a-Lago maintenance staffer Carlos De Oliveira was added to the list of defendants. Details:
Prosecutors allege in the updated indictment that two Trump employees – aide Walt Nauta and Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker Carlos De Oliveira – attempted to delete security camera footage at the former president’s resort after the Justice Department issued a subpoena for it.
De Oliveira told the director of IT at the resort “that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted,” according to the indictment.
Trump, who had already faced 37 criminal charges, was charged with one additional count of willful retention of national defense information and two additional obstruction counts.
Destruction of evidence for which you've received a subpœna seems like textbook obstruction of justice.
$5.25m plus costs therefore $10m in two, whoops, six years time? Stick it on the slate with rest for the oil billionaires to pay and get tax relief on. The Devil looks after his own.
If an elected president was to be unable to take office because he qas xdfvkng a prison sentnce, could his running-maye do so in his stead and grant him a parcon, then step down?
If an elected president was to be unable to take office because he qas xdfvkng a prison sentnce, could his running-maye do so in his stead and grant him a parcon, then step down?
We really do not know, and I hope we will never know.
But the point remains, even through a running mate may assume the office because a president is unable to fulfill the duties of the office, that running mate can only pardon for federal offenses. A number of the charges Trump is facing are at the state level.
If an elected president was to be unable to take office because he qas xdfvkng a prison sentnce, could his running-maye do so in his stead and grant him a parcon, then step down?
This question was somewhat addressed in a Justice Deparment memo dated August 5, 1974. Must have been something going on around then.
Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.
If under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such could pardon the President. Thereafter the President could either resign or resume the duties of his office.
Nixon resigned four days after that memo was issued.
I think a more important question is why one of America's two major political parties is so enthusiastic to support a very credibly accused felon for the presidency.
If an elected president was to be unable to take office because he qas xdfvkng a prison sentnce, could his running-maye do so in his stead and grant him a parcon, then step down?
Said person would also be committing political suicide by abusing the office that way. And why bother, when you could let him sit in jail, make noble remarks about the rule of law, and continue on as President yourself?
If an elected president was to be unable to take office because he qas xdfvkng a prison sentnce, could his running-maye do so in his stead and grant him a parcon, then step down?
This question was somewhat addressed in a Justice Deparment memo dated August 5, 1974. Must have been something going on around then.
Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.
If under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment the President declared that he was temporarily unable to perform the duties of the office, the Vice President would become Acting President and as such could pardon the President. Thereafter the President could either resign or resume the duties of his office.
Nixon resigned four days after that memo was issued.
I think a more important question is why one of America's two major political parties is so enthusiastic to support a very credibly accused felon for the presidency.
Comments
Pace Ohher, it's hard to attribute the course of action to individual cases - and probably nothing much of what we're talking about flows directly from either case. But the cumulative effect of the decisions, particularly Parker, rapidly worked its way through lower courts as well. By the time I left active practice, the stage had been reached that reliance upon English cases post-WW II was almost unheard of.
The comments in Parker were (with respect) clearly correct. Our lecturers told stories of ashen-faced Law Lords, knocked aback by the strength and validity of the comments, making their way around corridors in Westminster looking for support and strong cups of tea.
The response is full of barely concealed sarcasm, but the arguments boil down to the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, the Presidential Records Act is not a get out of jail free card when it comes to national security documents, that this argument isn't "novel" in the legal sense of the term, and that people with busy schedules don't get to delay the court to accommodate themselves.
Bolding added by me.
Counsel should not accept a brief if prior commitments will prevent counsel spending the necessary time on preparation and at the hearing. That certainly is the rule here and one that I followed for almost 50 years practice.
But but but . . .
. . . what other kind of attorney can be expected to voluntarily take on this particular client?
A duly appointed public defender, though "voluntarily" may not be a consideration.
Any lawyer who relies on the offer of a fee from Trump is as stupid as he is. You get payment upfront from that deadbeat.
The rule here is that counsel must accept a brief if it is in counsel's area of practice and (as I said before) counsel has (i) sufficient time to prepare it, (ii) a suitable fee is offered and and (iii) counsel is free on the day for which the matter is listed. So had I been offered a brief to appear for an accused charged with a break, enter and steal, I could legitimately decline it on the basis that I'd not appeared in such a matter for almost 50 years. No counsel who regularly appeared in criminal matters generally could though. Bro James's "reputational risk" does not come into it.
The arrangement of a split legal profession disappeared in the US a long time ago. There are no US states that maintain the distinction.
The article is trying very hard not to draw obvious conclusions from known facts (e.g. "it isn't clear how antiquities belonging to Israel ended up at Trump's Florida club", etc.). I'm not sure "I'm just holding this for a friend" is any more convincing when it comes to antiquities than it is when it comes to a baggie of weed.
Those of you with sharp memories may remember Trump similarly looting the American embassy in Paris when he was there in 2018. Despite the fact that the items he took were replicas they're still the property of the U.S. government. I'm not sure I ever saw a follow-up as to whether they're still in government custody after Trump left office.
Anyone who had "stolen antiquities" or "diplomatic incident" on their Trump's next crime bingo card, please collect your prizes.
link
My guess for charges is something related to the Insurrection Act. Trump complained on Truth Social recently about being charged under the Insurrection Act, which is not a publicly known charge against him. The post was eventually edited to read "Espionage Act" instead, something we know he's been charged with violating.
It's not as though he's some slick smooth-talker or clever trickster. He's not handsome or beguiling or smart. He has all the charm of a decaying carcass, the wit of of a poop-obsessed 2-year-old, and the appeal of week-old summer roadkill. And yet somehow he manages to persuade otherwise more-or-less sensible people into doing his bidding, voting for him, and even doing jail time for attempting to keep him illegally in an office he failed to win. How in bloody hell does he pull this off?
Not all of his followers are willing to do jail time for him.
That's the inference most people are drawing.
Alas,
Trump is not the only one .... in the UK we have 'em aplenty - Johnson, Rees Mogg, Farage, Braverman ... I could go on and include Sir Kid Starver et al, but it's depressing.
I read somewhere that a certain crowd of people who really should have known better chose one Barabas instead of ....
I'm afraid we still do.
North East Quine, Purgatory Host
A court turned down his request for a new trial in the E. Jean Carroll case: Yeah, that is pretty much Trump's Standard Operating Procedure.
Meanwhile, another NY court also rejected Trump's attempt to move the Stormy Daniels Hush Money case to federal court. Trump argued that the case should be heard in federal court because it involved his 2016 presidency and federal election law. The judge disagreed:
My guess is that Trump wanted to change courts as a delaying tactic, something that would reset the process clock to zero. If the hush money trial were set to be heard in federal court he'd probably be arguing to have it handled in state court. There's no principle here other than "delay as long as possible".
In other news, Trump's trial for illegal possession of classified documents is now set for May 2024.
I agree that he'll always use delaying tactics as it is his best hope of avoiding accountability. However, in this case, I do think it's specifically about pardon power. The chance of a New York Governor pardoning him is very slim. Next Republican president much more likely. Especially if it's him*
AFZ
*legally untested whether a President can pardon him/herself.
True, a trial date in May will be after the primaries, but before a national convention,
Trump himself is melting down on his own bespoke social media platform so something is probably up.
Destruction of evidence for which you've received a subpœna seems like textbook obstruction of justice.
May it lead him to repentence!
$5.25m plus costs therefore $10m in two, whoops, six years time? Stick it on the slate with rest for the oil billionaires to pay and get tax relief on. The Devil looks after his own.
We really do not know, and I hope we will never know.
But the point remains, even through a running mate may assume the office because a president is unable to fulfill the duties of the office, that running mate can only pardon for federal offenses. A number of the charges Trump is facing are at the state level.
This question was somewhat addressed in a Justice Deparment memo dated August 5, 1974. Must have been something going on around then.
Nixon resigned four days after that memo was issued.
I think a more important question is why one of America's two major political parties is so enthusiastic to support a very credibly accused felon for the presidency.
Said person would also be committing political suicide by abusing the office that way. And why bother, when you could let him sit in jail, make noble remarks about the rule of law, and continue on as President yourself?
Answered by unenlightenable self interest.
Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
Conspiracy to obstruct a formal proceeding.
Obstructing a formal proceeding, and
Conspiracy against rights.
Why didn't they just sum it all up with one word: sedition?