3 Likes
Heâs just knocking it out of the park. Asked in a deposition about his comment that âwhen youâre a star, they let youâ (grab them by the p*ssy, just start kissing them, etc.), he responded, âIf you look over the last million years, thatâs largely trueâ. Asked if Trump considered himself a star, he said he was.
2 Likes
This could also go in the US Coup thread:
My SWAG on who wasnât offered immunity:
Cathy Latham, the fake elector that also arranged the breach of voting machines in Coffee County
David Shafer, GA GOP Chair that was the Chairman of the fake electoral slate
It looks like the Jean Carroll lawsuit is ready for closing statements. I normally hate to speculate, but I canât help it on this one.
When I first heard about it, I assumed âhe-said, she-said, Trump gets offâ. But, this is a civil case, Carroll only needs a preponderance of evidence. And, she has other women who have testified to similar events. And, she has Trumpâs own words saying he thinks this is a normal perk of being a âstarâ.
Iâm leaning toward Carroll winning.
If so, what is the penalty? She hasnât asked for any specific amount. Again, I assumed that any amount she got for actual damages would be âsmallâ relative to Trumpâs finances.
But, Trumpâs attitude that itâs been like that for âthe last million yearsâ might make a jury decide that he figures his wealth shields him from any real consequences. The jury could try to make a statement. Forbes says Trump is worth $2.5 billion. How much would be âenoughâ for a jury?
If they were to make Trump pay 50% of what he says heâs worth, it might bankrupt him. (Of course, they wonât do nearly that much)
I think when part of Trumpâs defense is that sheâs ânot his typeâ and then he identifies photos of her as photos of one of his wives, he loses the âhe said, she saidâ game.
I expect heâll lose. But i also expect heâll manage to delay paying the judgement indefinitely.
2 Likes
Trump officially says no thanks to testifying. Closing arguments start today.
I do like that (in certain circumstances) in civil suits refusing to testify can be used against you.
I wait for the maggots to scream that this is unconstitutional.
IANAL, but how is civil different than criminal in particular? I am pretty sure criminal juries can infer anything they want from a defendantâs decision not to testify. Can the prosecutor in a criminal case make statements about âhmm, why donât we see the defendant on the stand?â or do they have to be roundabout in how they bring it to jurorsâ minds? For civil, is there anything the judge can decide or instruct the jury due to lack of testimony on the stand? What would happen if a respondent or plaintiff (insert correct legal terms here) either didnât respond to a deposition or declined to answer in a deposition?
IANAL but my understanding is in a criminal trial the defendant has no requirement to testify and the jury is specifically instructed that they can not considered a defendants decision to not testify against them. (whether folks on the jury actually follow this instruction is probably a debate that could go on for quite a while). In a Civil case they jury can consider whether or not a defendant decides to testify or not CAN be used as part of the jury deliberations and considerations about which party will prevail.
Why they have different standards I couldnât say but if I had to guess it probably goes all the way back to English common law hundreds of years ago. And probably also has something to do with the different standards of âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ in criminal cases and âa preponderance of the evidenceâ in civil cases.
2 Likes
Was just on a jury a couple of weeks ago and they mentioned this several times. Defendant did not testify and we were supposed to ignore that fact in our deliberations. Plenty of other reasons he was guilty, so not sure he would have helped his case by speaking up anyway.
Thanks for the clarification @YankeeTripper and @Triweasel . I have only been called for jury duty once, and never sat.
1 Like
The fifth amendment addresses some rights when accused of a crime, and specifically says ânor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.â
No idea why the founders specifically singled this out as a right in criminal trials but not civil. Like yt said, it might tie back to some older English traditions.
2 Likes
Iâve been called a bunch of times but have never actually say on a jury. I must be shady because a few times I got all the way to to selection seat but in those occasions either the prosecution or defense used used one of their challenges to boot me without ever asking me a question. One time I think they used one of their last 2 challenges to toss me and I was glad because the trial was supposed to be over a week long.
I think it stems from the inherent difference between civil and criminal trials.
In a criminal trial itâs the defendant vs the state. The state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and they should be able to present facts that stand on their own (perhaps with some interpretation) without needing the defendantâs testimony to make the case.
In a civil trial, itâs one party versus another party. Sometimes one of those party is the stateâŚbut the state doesnât have a special status (ignoring sovereign immunities if the state is being sued). The âbeyond reasonable doubtâ standard doesnât apply; itâs preponderance of the evidence. Both sides should present facts and evidence in support of their point of view, after which the jury (or the judge, if itâs a bench trial) can make a decision.
One or the other sides could choose to not present a case, but given the âpreponderance of evidenceâ standard, it makes sense that the jury/judge could consider the lack of a presentation when making a decision.
1 Like
So it sounds like Trumpâs attorneyâs closing argument boils down to âE. Jean Carroll is a lying whore.â
The 5th Amendment and how it was written is the primary reason as i understand it.
The reason for the difference, i too have no idea.
I think part of the reason is to prevent torture.
Torture as a legal tool goes back to ancient rome at least. The idea was to torture somebody until they told you a piece of information they could only know if they did it, like where a body was buried. Then that evidence was collaborated, and used to convict the person. I donât think torture would have been used for civil cases, then or since.
To contrast with that, as I understand it, ancient jewish law prevented a person from testifying against himself. For that reason there was never any jewish torture.
1 Like
well, Jewish torturers.
1 Like
Yep, this is my understanding as well.