In a singular moment for American history, the hush money trial of former President Donald Trump begins Monday with jury selection.
It’s the first criminal trial of a former commander in chief and the first of Trump’s four indictments to go to trial. Because Trump is the presumptive nominee for this year’s Republican ticket, the trial will also produce the head-spinning split-screen of a presidential candidate spending his days in court and, he has said, “campaigning during the night.”
And to some extent, it is a trial of the justice system itself as it grapples with a defendant who has used his enormous prominence to assail the judge, his daughter, the district attorney, some witnesses and the allegations — all while blasting the legitimacy of a legal structure that he insists has been appropriated by his political opponents.
Against that backdrop, scores of ordinary citizens are due to be called Monday into a cavernous room in a utilitarian courthouse to determine whether they can serve, fairly and impartially, on the jury.
“The ultimate issue is whether the prospective jurors can assure us that they will set aside any personal feelings or biases and render a decision that is based on the evidence and the law,” Judge Juan M. Merchan wrote in an April 8 filing.
Trump has pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records as part of an alleged effort to keep salacious — and, he says, bogus — stories about his sex life from emerging during his 2016 campaign.
The charges center on $130,000 in payments that Trump’s company made to his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen. He paid that sum on Trump’s behalf to keep porn actor Stormy Daniels from going public, a month before the election, with her claims of a sexual encounter with the married mogul a decade earlier...
Contrary to those who doggedly believed the Malignant Loser would never face trial in a criminal case (he's already lost civil cases, including the E. Jean Carroll defamation case), he'll be there in the courtroom in Manhattan today as jury selection for his hush money for porn stars election interference trial begins. He's likely living in fear of what the various prosecution witnesses will testify to, especially Stormy Daniels. Wrenches (as well as ketchup) can still be thrown in the works, but the prosecution and Judge Merchan seem determined to see this trial though, and who knows what a jury will do, even with overwhelming evidence of the Malignant Loser's guilt. On the other hand, at the highest levels of the judiciary...
... On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether prosecutors improperly stretched the law by charging people with that violation [obstruction of an official proceeding] in the first place.
The high court’s ruling, likely to land in late June, has the potential to undo the convictions and sentences of those who have already gone to trial or pleaded guilty, and upend the charges still pending for many more. Three Jan. 6 defendants have already had their sentences reduced ahead of a decision by the Supreme Court.
The court’s decision could have political implications for this year’s election, since Donald Trump — the likely Republican nominee — has made accusations of prosecutorial overreach a core part of his appeal to voters. The case could also directly impact Trump’s own trial for allegedly trying to remain in power after his 2020 defeat; two of the four charges he faces are based on the obstruction statute, and he could move to have those charges dismissed if the Supreme Court rules for the rioters.
Defense lawyers say prosecutors overreached by charging rioters with a crime that is limited to conduct that destroys or tampers with evidence sought by investigators. The government’s broad application of the statute, the lawyers warned in court filings, would allow prosecutors to target protesters or lobbyists who disrupt congressional committees.
The Justice Department said there are no examples of prosecutors using the statute passed two decades ago to target such behavior, which is protected by the First Amendment. Government lawyers argue that the violent disruption of the peaceful transfer of power after a presidential election, including attacks on police officers, is no minor interference...
We only play lawyers on this blog, but it seems to us this issue, as well as that of the Malignant Loser's claim of absolute immunity, should have been denied outright by the Republican Supreme Court. But, silly us, look at those last words we just typed! There's your answer.
The executor of O.J. Simpson’s estate says he will do “everything” in his power to keep the families of murder victims Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson from seeing payment of a $33.5 million wrongful death judgment that was granted to them by a jury in a California civil case in 1997.
Simpson, a former NFL star and actor, died on Wednesday at the age of 76, and on Friday, his will was filed in Nevada’s Clark County court.
The documents, reviewed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, show the disgraced football player’s estate was placed into a trust last year with longtime lawyer Malcolm LaVergne named as executor.
LaVergne, who had represented Simpson since 2009, told the Review-Journal that the value of Simpson’s property has yet to be totaled but that he plans to keep the families from receiving any further payouts.
“It’s my hope that the Goldmans get zero, nothing,” he said. “Them specifically. And I will do everything in my capacity as the executor or personal representative to try and ensure that they get nothing.”
In 1995, Simpson was acquitted of murder charges in the stabbing deaths of his ex-wife and her friend Goldman in what was then called the “trial of the century.”
Years later, a civil court determined the athlete had “willingly and wrongfully” caused Goldman’s and Brown Simpson’s deaths.
LaVergne contends that the court never officially ordered Simpson to pay the judgment, which David Cook, a lawyer for Ron Goldman’s father, told The New York Times has ballooned to $114 million after nearly three decades of accumulating interest.
LaVergne also took issue with how the Goldmans handled the publication of Simpson’s 2007 memoir, “If I Did It,” which they retitled “If I Did It: Confessions of the Killer” after winning control of the manuscript in court... (our emphasis)
LaVergne sounds like a great guy, just like his deceased client. In his case, Shakespeare had a point.
