Trump loses bid for Carroll mistrial after lawyer's literary fumble

[LetMyPeopleVote]

EJ Carroll wrote a book called "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal." TFG's attorney questioned here about the book and the judge stepped in and told the idiot TFG attorney that this was satire based on Swift's "A Modest Proposal" Today TFG's attorney filed a motion for a mistrial based in part on the judge pointing out that the TFG attorney is an idiot.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-e-jean-carroll-mistrial-tacopina-rcna82285?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&taid=64504f065926cc0001778978&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Yet, one of the items on Tacopina's laundry list of unfairness stood out as especially absurd. It dealt with literature, a controversial subject in the book-banning GOP these days. And it provides a lesson about one work Republicans might want to keep on the shelves.

Tacopina pointed to an exchange with Carroll on cross-examination about a reference in her book to sending all men to Montana for retraining. When he pressed her, Carroll pointed out that it was satire, suggesting that Tacopina was an idiot if he didn't understand that. Then Kaplan interjected to note that Carroll's satire comes from Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," a satirical essay from the 18th century that "proposed" poor Irish parents sell their children as food.

In his failed mistrial letter, Trump's lawyer argued that it was inappropriate for the judge to chime in and provide this context. Tacopina's letter went further by actually going through the trouble of distinguishing between Carroll's and Swift's satires, observing that Carroll referred to men while Swift referred to children. The point, Tacopina wrote, is that it was inappropriate for the judge to get involved because it showed favoritism.

Of course, Tacopina ran the risk of Kaplan's interjecting when he touched on such an obvious point. Indeed, Carroll's 2019 book is titled "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal." The Swift reference is clear, and lawyers need to remember that the judge is always the smartest person in the room.

Kaplan didn't need to weigh in on the literary point, but his doing so doesn't create a mistrial.

[marble falls]

1. So his reasoning is: "I'm an idiot, but nobody knew until you pointed it out." Did I miss anything?

[Blue Owl]

2. If you like Joe Tacopina, and watching tRump get arraigned...

If you like Joe Tacopina, and watching tRump get arraigned...
If you're not into MAGA, and you hate his campaign...

If you like tweeting after midnight, in the dunes by the cape,
If it's justice you look for, tRump will be charged with rape...

[ZonkerHarris]

4. I raise a Pina Colada to you in a magnificent toast

[Baked Potato]

8. Well, you know I really love a rhyme, thanks. Nt

[ZonkerHarris]

3. I hope Joe is prepared to have his legal bills to trump not be paid now

[TheBlackAdder]

10. He knew his client's past and if he didn't ask for cash up front, his idiocy would be affirmed. 🤣

[LowerManhattanite]

5. The price of willful stupidity, the devaluing of literature...

…is irrational, petulant anger when everybody else who DOES read grasps a literary reference BUT you.

[dembotoz]

6. works if the jury are idiots too

[Retrograde]

7. We had to read Swift's "A Modest Proposal"

in high school English way back when. Quite a few people didn't get that it was satire.

Aren't lawyers supposed to generally well-educated? The Swift essay is not exactly obscure

[GenThePerservering]

9. I wouldn't assume any professional is actually well educated

many now consider the humanities, particularly literature, to be a waste of time. It's why so many of them seem like such dimwits outside the narrow scope of their 'profession'. The humahities actually teaches one to THINK and not just memorize.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. Trump's lawyers need to remember that the judge is always the smartest person in the room

Link to tweet