Judge refuses to tell jury in Trump civil rape trial that former president is 'excused'

[jgo]

Source: NBC News

The judge said the court does not accept Trump’s counsel’s “claims concerning alleged burdens on the courthouse or the City” if the former president were to testify at the trial.

The response from U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan, who is presiding over the trial stemming from writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit, came a day after Trump’s lawyer sent the judge a letter indicating the former president might take the witness stand in the trial, but it would be too difficult for him to attend the entire trial for logistical reasons tied to his former office.

In his letter to Kaplan on Wednesday, the lawyer, Joe Tacopina, requested the judge to instruct jurors: “While no litigant is required to appear at a civil trial, the absence of the defendant in this matter, by design, avoids the logistical burdens that his presence, as the former president, would cause the courthouse and New York City. Accordingly, his presence is excused unless and until he is called by either party to testify.”

Kaplan responded that the court does not accept Trump’s counsel’s “claims concerning alleged burdens on the courthouse or the City” if Trump were to testify at trial. The judge noted that Trump is under no legal obligation to be present or testify, and that Carroll’s counsel has signaled that they were not planning to call Trump as a witness.


Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-refuses-tell-jury-trump-civil-rape-trial-former-president-excuse-rcna80672

[Faux pas]

1. Lol

well now they've gone from throwing whatever against the wall to see if it sticks 🙄 to shitting in their hands and flinging it all over. Give it up morans sheesh

[2naSalit]

2. The first time...

I set eyes on that taco-pinnochio guy I knew they were a low grade clown show. This seems like Tanya Harding trying to defend herself after that attack on Nancy Harrigan.

Pathetic.

[erronis]

6. Ah, Tanya Harding - a blast from the past. Now reincarnated as Margarine Toilet Green.

Ugly and evil people.

At least Ms. Harding knew how to do something more that harm a competitor - she was a pretty decent skater.

[2naSalit]

12. At least she could do that.

I like, Margarine Toilet Green.

A slight alteration popped into my head just now, though. How about, Margarine Toilet Grunge?

[COL Mustard]

8. Tapioca

Please get the lawyer's name right...Tapioca...

[2naSalit]

13. It's

Tacopinnochio, don't you know your Greek?

[COL Mustard]

15. Clearly not!

[2naSalit]

18. I knew you'd understand.

[IggleDuer]

3. First time I've seen Mango Mussolini show consideration...

… for the people of New York …Or anyone for that matter.

[Novara]

4. Not really

He's making a bullshit excuse so he doesn't have to sit there looking guilty and well, like a criminal at the defense table.

That bullshit about him willing to testify? A transparent lie. His lawyer just thought it would sound good to the judge.

This judge sees through it.

[soldierant]

10. He doesn't need an excuse not to be there. He's not required.

But, as with the Fifth Amendment, the jury is entitled to draw conclusions from his choice.

He wants the Judge to spin it for him is all.

[ZonkerHarris]

26. This

[TomSlick]

5. A few points.

First, a defendant in a civil case has an absolute right to be present at the trial. It is the Court's obligation to take the necessary steps to ensure that defendant's safety. Trump's decision to not appear for the trial is his own.

Second, unless a civil defendant has been subpoenaed by the other side, there is no obligation they appear.

Three, as a civil defense attorney, I would never dream of going to a trial without the defendant sitting next to me. Even in case in which I will not call the defendant as a witness, I will insist they be there. The jury is required to attend the trial and will not understand why a defendant is not at the trial.

Fourth, in this case, if Trump does not testify, the only version of the facts the jury will hear will be that of Ms. Carroll. The jury will expect to hear Trump's story - from Trump.

If Trump does not appear and testify my bet is for a plaintiff's verdict.

[Leith]

7. Thank you

One of my favorite thing about DU is that we include experts in fields that share their knowledge with us. This is one of the best kind - clear, concise, and to the point, with a conclusion that I like to hear/read.

[fierywoman]

9. This! And I am So very grateful to the DU experts (legal and in the kitchen!)

[pirsquared]

19. she said/he said?

I cannot grasp how this will be a trial. It sure seems like a "she said/he said" matter. There seems to be no evidence, no rape kit, no DNA evidence, no witnesses, not even contemporaneous statements. I have no doubt that Carroll is telling the truth, but I could not possibly vote on a jury as to "beyond reasonable doubt" nor even "the preponderance of evidence". What evidence?--there is not even hearsay.

[TomSlick]

20. If the jury concludes Ms. Carroll is telling the truth,

that will be proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The testimony of a single witness, in this case Ms. Carroll, is sufficient to prove a case if the jury decides to believe her. The testimony of a victim IS evidence. A rape kit, DNA, etc., would be helpful but hardly required.

However, you do point out a problem in trials today. Jurors are conditioned by television shows to expect scientific evidence in trials.

It will be Ms. Carroll's lawyer's job to explain to the jurors that they are not extras in a TV drama. It will be Trump's lawyers' job to obfuscate.

[pirsquared]

23. If trump loses, he will appeal

Not so simple; Trump will surely appeal any judgment against him.

The appeals court will consider 1) whether there was sufficient evidence to support the decision; 2) the credibility of the testimonies, whether the denial by trump was given equal/proper weight; 3) the concomitant consequences on future trials of this nature.

My bet is that trump will walk free. This will not be fair, of course.

[TomSlick]

24. That will not be how the smart money bets.

The best way to win on appeal is to win at trial. Jury verdicts are rarely reversed on appeal. An appellate court is obliged to give great deference to the finding of fact by a jury. Cases are rarely reversed for insufficient evidence.

Absent some legal error by the judge, e.g. in an evidentiary ruling or jury instructions, a jury verdict will stand. Even if there is a legal error by the judge, the case will be reversed only if the error is prejudicial and not harmless.

[pirsquared]

30. trump always denies an accusation--wouldn't every defendant?

"The best way to win on appeal is to win at trial. Jury verdicts are rarely reversed on appeal. An appellate court is obliged to give great deference to the finding of fact by a jury. Cases are rarely reversed for insufficient evidence."

100% agree. But the problem is getting that first jury conviction in dueling assertions. How would you decide in the jury room to weigh the credibility of the plaintiff vs the resolute denials of the defendant?

In the absence of real evidence, would it not come down to "I trust him; I like her voice; seems like a nice girl; 72 million people voted for him, so..."

[TomSlick]

31. My point is the testimony of a plaintiff IS real evidence.

If Trump does not testify, there will be no "dueling assertions." If Trump does not appear and deny the allegations, the jury is free to believe the allegations of the plaintiff if they find her credible. The jury is also free to find the plaintiff is not credible. However, without Trump's testimony, the jury is not able to weigh which testimony they find the most credible.

Assuming Trump does not testify, if I was in the jury room, my first question would be whether I found by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not) that the Plaintiff is credible. If I found the Plaintiff is credible, the only remaining question would be the amount of her damages.

[pirsquared]

32. trump defense team

Do not imagine that the trump team will put up no defense. TFG may not appear, but there will surely be witnesses that dispute Carroll. {couldn't possibly have raped her--he was banging me at the time, etc}

Could not have violated our marriage vows--{Melania}, not my Donny. Never did this ever before.

--------------------------
Are you coming to the satancon convention sponsored by Satanic Temple in Boston?

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/04/25/satancon-boston-dedicated-mayor-michelle-wu/

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/satanic-temple-s-satancon-in-boston-set-to-be-largest-satanic-gathering-in-history/ar-AA1ahF34

They are a really good DU-type group. I can arrange free tickets for you--maybe free hotel room. Let me know.


We could meet.
..

[Leith]

21. Decisions are made by the people who show up

If the orange monster can't be bothered to show up to defend himself against a serious charge, it would certainly influence my decision if I were on the jury.

[PJMcK]

28. Your judgment of the case is premature

The Plaintiff has yet to present their story.

The Defendant has yet to present their rebuttal.

A jury is supposed to enter the courtroom with an open mind. Until the trial, the jury shouldn’t form any opinions about it.

Let’s see how the stories are told. Then we— and the jury— will be more informed.

[mahina]

29. How could we know that ?

Or you?

[dchill]

11. That Joe Tacopina is almost as sharp as anybody else.

[erronis]

14. Perhaps even duller than his client? Wow!

It's scary to think how this bunch of dimwit crims came close to owning a whole country.

[jmowreader]

16. The court's response is something like...

"Look pal, we tried John Gotti. Security for Trump will be no problem at all."

[tanyev]

17. But it was a beautiful excuse! A perfect excuse!

All the court employees had tears in their eyes when they heard it! They said, “Sir, we’ve never heard such a wonderful excuse before. Ever!”

[Laura PourMeADrink]

27. DUzy

[LetMyPeopleVote]

22. This stunt by Trump will go over like a rotten egg in the Florida sun with Judge Kaplan...

Link to tweet

[DemocraticPatriot]

25. I am not initially against TFG's initial failure to appear at these trials,

since every appearance will cost the taxpayers more money---

the cost of the Secret Service shuffling him into court.


The only necessary appearances are for the verdicts, and for sentencing. Otherwise, he can keep his fat ass at home...