"Quite the novel defense strategy, counting on the prosecution to call witnesses that allegedly would weaken its case, then not calling them yourself while hoping the jury would just sort of figure out why not on its own because it’s so self-evident."
I'm not sure if it's the same in New York, but where I live the prosecution is obliged to call all relevant and admissible evidence, whether it supports the prosecution case or not (so yes, you'd expect the prosecution would call the likes of Schiller if he was willing to give evidence, even if he purported to contradict Michael Cohen's evidence or claimed "no payoff, no payoff, you're the payoff"). Surely defence lawyers are within their rights to say, "We require this witness for cross-examination"? That said, the prosecution is NOT obliged to call a witness whom they've determined to not be a witness of truth - you can't put someone in the witness box who you know will perjure him/herself. And if someone like Schiller refused to cooperate and make a statement, what's the prosecution supposed to do? Todd, mate - issuing a subpoena if you want a witness called is not that fucking hard.
I suspect the defence team was hamstrung by a client who insisted they run the trial as a forum to air his grievances, rather than putting together a coherent case theory. From what I've read, it seems they failed to explore legitimate lines of attack and exploit weaknesses in the prosecution case. I found myself wondering if on appeal they'd try running incompetence of Counsel, but it seemed obvious they were stuck with their instructions.
One thing that struck me was some of the commentary from current and former lawyers that a "quick verdict usually means guilty" or "the longer they deliberate, the better for the defence"- it's the reverse where I practise: if a jury rejects the central prosecution witnesses' evidence, it's an easy and quick decision. It takes longer to convict, because if they believe the central witnesses, they still have to be satisfied of each element of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutors start to breathe a little easier here when it's gone three hours and no verdict yet.
Assuming you don’t live in the US by your use of “mate” and spelling of defense as “defence.”
In American criminal trials, the prosecution merely has to share its evidence with the defense and usually provide a list of witnesses it plans to present at trial so the defense can prepare for cross examination. (Sometimes in mob trials and the like, the witnesses’ identities are obscured until right at the moment of testimony.) It isn’t supposed to hide exculpatory evidence from the defense (although this rule is generally on the honor system so poorer people often have been found guilty and then years later it comes out that the prosecutor had DNA evidence or testimony or whatever that should have proved the defendant was innocent). But it also has no obligation to make the defense’s case for them or even highlight the evidence that the defense should use to try to get their client off.
Yeah, we have the same rules of disclosure too, nor is the prosecution required to call everyone the police spoke to in an investigation. But if the evidence is relevant and admissible, you're expected to call it unless there's an agreement that witness isn’t needed or the witness is clearly not a witness of truth. The prosecution has to list all the witnesses on the indictment (though in gangland cases usualĺy undercover operatives and the like are referred to by a pseudonym) and file a case summary that outlines how the case is put and the evidence expected to be called. But if the defence doesn’t read the brief of evidence and disclosure material properly, or call a witness the prosecution decided not to, that's called a "forensic decision" and is on them.
Which leads to another question - do investigators prepare a brief of evidence for court in US jurisdictions? Police here collate witness statements, transcripts of recordings, AV material, photos, put it all together with the charge sheets and provide it to the defence, court and prosecutor's office. An American judge gave a talk once to my work years ago and said after looking at a typical police brief that that wasn't a thing in his jurisdiction at least when he was a prosecutor (he joked that he was jealous), but I wondered if that had changed.
One thing I wish we had here is alternate jurors. For a big trial, you can empanel up to 15, but if they're all still there when it’s time to deliberate, three are ballotted off at random to get to 12, which I think is a bit rough. They've given up weeks of their lives to follow the case and then told, "the rest of the jurors will take it from here - bye."
If I had a nickel for every argument I had online where I asked my antagonist for evidence to back up their point, and got some answer like, "Educate yourself."
Apparently you don't realize how valuable my time is, and even if it weren't, either argue or don't, because I don't propose to *argue against myself* FOR you.
Going into this trial, almost every lawyer in the land said that Todd Blanche was an excellent trial lawyer, one of the best. And while the anti-establishment renegade in me would love to believe that the entire high-falutin' American legal establishment is composed of overpaid bozos who are so dedicated to huffing their own farts that they elevated a no-talent hack to high public esteem, I know it's not true. Blanche may have had a difficult case, but it should not have been an incompetently defended one.
Trump must be a nightmare of a client. I mean, beyond anything we had even already suspected. Although, maybe we should have suspected. He has had considerable legal success in the past, but it was always against private parties who simply couldn't afford to fight Trump's endless legal battles. But when Trump comes up against legal opponents who CAN match his resources, he always loses.
Anyway, gotta point out that the only way Blanche gets any more money from Trump is if Trump decides he still needs him. Giving Trump results that don't meet his expectations of perfection is SPECIFICALLY how and why he stiffs his employees and contractors. He said that with his own ugly mouth.
IIRC, Blanche’s legal experience was mostly as a prosecutor. I believe this was only his 2nd trial as defense counsel.
He’s certainly not the worst of TFG’s attorneys (cough *Alina Habba* cough). But that is a fairly low bar.
I actually think Joe Tacopina (a/k/a Joey Tacos) could have done a much better job cross-examining Michael Cohen. But Tacos quit the day before the 2nd Carroll trial, which is why Habba took over, and got an $83.3 million verdict against TFG.
To paraphrase: If you’re a lawyer who lets your client dictate trial strategy, then you’re a fool.
“COLLINS: Why did Donald Trump not ultimately take the stand here?
BLANCHE: Well, that’s a very personal question to him and to me, honestly.
Man, Collins is not asking you whether Cantaloupe Capone is suffering from advanced syphilis. She’s not asking if he wants to terminate a pregnancy, which his Supreme Court nominees and most of his party have made clear they think is a decision for all of society except the pregnant person anyway.
No, a personal question would be, “Mr. Blanche, since Trump’s wife never showed at the trial, did you have to change his Depends during court recesses?” Which would make sense, he doesn’t seem to have spent those recesses coming up with a smart defense strategy”
BTW Facebook has also given outside counsel payment in the form of the incomparable prestige of representing FB, rather than dispensing the filthy lucre lawyers use to run their offices. I should try this with the plumber.
Spend enough time not paying people, end up being unable to hire competent people to do the job.
There is no way at all Blanche is getting paid.
Certainly not the full amount. Deciding to only pay a fraction of what was agreed upon is PAB's M.O.
The interview can't possibly be as enjoyable to watch as your synopsis was to read.
"Quite the novel defense strategy, counting on the prosecution to call witnesses that allegedly would weaken its case, then not calling them yourself while hoping the jury would just sort of figure out why not on its own because it’s so self-evident."
I'm not sure if it's the same in New York, but where I live the prosecution is obliged to call all relevant and admissible evidence, whether it supports the prosecution case or not (so yes, you'd expect the prosecution would call the likes of Schiller if he was willing to give evidence, even if he purported to contradict Michael Cohen's evidence or claimed "no payoff, no payoff, you're the payoff"). Surely defence lawyers are within their rights to say, "We require this witness for cross-examination"? That said, the prosecution is NOT obliged to call a witness whom they've determined to not be a witness of truth - you can't put someone in the witness box who you know will perjure him/herself. And if someone like Schiller refused to cooperate and make a statement, what's the prosecution supposed to do? Todd, mate - issuing a subpoena if you want a witness called is not that fucking hard.
I suspect the defence team was hamstrung by a client who insisted they run the trial as a forum to air his grievances, rather than putting together a coherent case theory. From what I've read, it seems they failed to explore legitimate lines of attack and exploit weaknesses in the prosecution case. I found myself wondering if on appeal they'd try running incompetence of Counsel, but it seemed obvious they were stuck with their instructions.
One thing that struck me was some of the commentary from current and former lawyers that a "quick verdict usually means guilty" or "the longer they deliberate, the better for the defence"- it's the reverse where I practise: if a jury rejects the central prosecution witnesses' evidence, it's an easy and quick decision. It takes longer to convict, because if they believe the central witnesses, they still have to be satisfied of each element of each charge beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecutors start to breathe a little easier here when it's gone three hours and no verdict yet.
Assuming you don’t live in the US by your use of “mate” and spelling of defense as “defence.”
In American criminal trials, the prosecution merely has to share its evidence with the defense and usually provide a list of witnesses it plans to present at trial so the defense can prepare for cross examination. (Sometimes in mob trials and the like, the witnesses’ identities are obscured until right at the moment of testimony.) It isn’t supposed to hide exculpatory evidence from the defense (although this rule is generally on the honor system so poorer people often have been found guilty and then years later it comes out that the prosecutor had DNA evidence or testimony or whatever that should have proved the defendant was innocent). But it also has no obligation to make the defense’s case for them or even highlight the evidence that the defense should use to try to get their client off.
Well spotted!
Yeah, we have the same rules of disclosure too, nor is the prosecution required to call everyone the police spoke to in an investigation. But if the evidence is relevant and admissible, you're expected to call it unless there's an agreement that witness isn’t needed or the witness is clearly not a witness of truth. The prosecution has to list all the witnesses on the indictment (though in gangland cases usualĺy undercover operatives and the like are referred to by a pseudonym) and file a case summary that outlines how the case is put and the evidence expected to be called. But if the defence doesn’t read the brief of evidence and disclosure material properly, or call a witness the prosecution decided not to, that's called a "forensic decision" and is on them.
Which leads to another question - do investigators prepare a brief of evidence for court in US jurisdictions? Police here collate witness statements, transcripts of recordings, AV material, photos, put it all together with the charge sheets and provide it to the defence, court and prosecutor's office. An American judge gave a talk once to my work years ago and said after looking at a typical police brief that that wasn't a thing in his jurisdiction at least when he was a prosecutor (he joked that he was jealous), but I wondered if that had changed.
One thing I wish we had here is alternate jurors. For a big trial, you can empanel up to 15, but if they're all still there when it’s time to deliberate, three are ballotted off at random to get to 12, which I think is a bit rough. They've given up weeks of their lives to follow the case and then told, "the rest of the jurors will take it from here - bye."
"Because we don't have the burden of proof"
`
If I had a nickel for every argument I had online where I asked my antagonist for evidence to back up their point, and got some answer like, "Educate yourself."
Apparently you don't realize how valuable my time is, and even if it weren't, either argue or don't, because I don't propose to *argue against myself* FOR you.
I had read the Blanche is Convicted Felon PAB's lead attorney in the Case of the Stollen Documents. I can only hope so.
Question: should Biden, now, debate a convicted felon??
*2 debates, right??
Is Blanche the one who gave up a partnership to work for The Convicted Felon? I lose track.
omg 😮
wow
The ETTD is escalating
Yes, his law firm most definitely did not want to be associated with this ...thing. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/03/trump-todd-blanche-indictment-attorney-00090157 I forgot he also defended Paul Manafort (went to prison) and Igor Fruman (went to prison). So he was the obvious choice for Fat Nixon!
“The 34 counts were documents that really had very little connection to President Trump" Honestly! The ballpoint pen barely touched the paper!
He's a Sharpie guy.
like
Going into this trial, almost every lawyer in the land said that Todd Blanche was an excellent trial lawyer, one of the best. And while the anti-establishment renegade in me would love to believe that the entire high-falutin' American legal establishment is composed of overpaid bozos who are so dedicated to huffing their own farts that they elevated a no-talent hack to high public esteem, I know it's not true. Blanche may have had a difficult case, but it should not have been an incompetently defended one.
Trump must be a nightmare of a client. I mean, beyond anything we had even already suspected. Although, maybe we should have suspected. He has had considerable legal success in the past, but it was always against private parties who simply couldn't afford to fight Trump's endless legal battles. But when Trump comes up against legal opponents who CAN match his resources, he always loses.
Anyway, gotta point out that the only way Blanche gets any more money from Trump is if Trump decides he still needs him. Giving Trump results that don't meet his expectations of perfection is SPECIFICALLY how and why he stiffs his employees and contractors. He said that with his own ugly mouth.
Everyone gets paid. Until they don’t. Sorry Todd.
this was good
https://slate.com/culture/2024/05/donald-trump-news-2024-trial-verdict-apprentice.html
IIRC, Blanche’s legal experience was mostly as a prosecutor. I believe this was only his 2nd trial as defense counsel.
He’s certainly not the worst of TFG’s attorneys (cough *Alina Habba* cough). But that is a fairly low bar.
I actually think Joe Tacopina (a/k/a Joey Tacos) could have done a much better job cross-examining Michael Cohen. But Tacos quit the day before the 2nd Carroll trial, which is why Habba took over, and got an $83.3 million verdict against TFG.
To paraphrase: If you’re a lawyer who lets your client dictate trial strategy, then you’re a fool.
yeah but he's not pretty.
And he was a prosecutor in federal court, so he had a very cossetted life.
Have you watched the video *really* closely to see if Blanche was blinking SOS in Morse code?
Cantaloupe Capone is my new favorite name.
Gary, so many wonderful sentences and thoughts:
“COLLINS: Why did Donald Trump not ultimately take the stand here?
BLANCHE: Well, that’s a very personal question to him and to me, honestly.
Man, Collins is not asking you whether Cantaloupe Capone is suffering from advanced syphilis. She’s not asking if he wants to terminate a pregnancy, which his Supreme Court nominees and most of his party have made clear they think is a decision for all of society except the pregnant person anyway.
No, a personal question would be, “Mr. Blanche, since Trump’s wife never showed at the trial, did you have to change his Depends during court recesses?” Which would make sense, he doesn’t seem to have spent those recesses coming up with a smart defense strategy”
I laughed so hard. Thank you so much
BTW Facebook has also given outside counsel payment in the form of the incomparable prestige of representing FB, rather than dispensing the filthy lucre lawyers use to run their offices. I should try this with the plumber.
Another great deduction Gary!
"Quite the novel defense strategy"
It was passively brilliant! A tranquil genius Mr. Blanche!
“Of course President Trump pays his bills, and I am getting paid”
and added He has a bit of a reputation, that's why we the bill is paid in total in advance.
“Of course President Trump pays his bills, and I am getting paid.”
BWahaaahaaha