Six un-indicted co-conspirators?

[kentuck]

If they have not been indicted, does that mean they do not have to be in the same courtroom as DJT?

Could the defense argue that there cannot be a "conspiracy" unless someone else is indicted, along with the defendant?

I am in shock at this news today. I am trying to assimilate it all.

Whether or not DJT goes to jail, or if they appeal for the next four years, a trial will be good for our country, in my opinion. The lies need to be put to rest.

(edit) Or will the six "un-indicted co-conspirators" become six indicted conspirators in the Atlanta case?

[Joinfortmill]

1. There was some discussion about this..

Only charging Trump in this indictment means it can move forward faster, among a lot of other things. I'm sure they'll be discussing this more going forward

[bucolic_frolic]

2. I think this trial is the tip of the iceberg, with about 76 more to follow

Nail the Big Fish and get that part of justice over

[Irish_Dem]

3. I asked a similar question and Ocelot says they just have to be named for the rule to kick in.

Just named as co-conspirators for the hearsay rules etc to be in force.
Not indicted, not charged, just named.
Wow.

[kentuck]

4. That's good info.

That should make the trial go much quicker, I would think.

[Irish_Dem]

5. Yes that was the point, to speed up the trial.

All the co-conspirators if indicted would slow it down.

(This is what Andrew Weissmann is saying today.)

[kentuck]

6. That makes sense.

Now, if we can just get the trial started.

[Irish_Dem]

7. Yes indeed, Smith needs to hit the gas.