376

Trump fraud trial: Trump intends to deliver part of closing argument himself, say sources (abcnews.go.com)

submitted 2 years ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

71 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago

In practice, judges give attorneys great freedom at closing, as long as the argument has some relation to the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, judges must carefully craft any restrictions on closing so that they don't deny the defendant the opportunity to discuss important considerations for the jury.

Nonetheless, there are limits to proper closing argument. When attorneys overstep them, usually a judge will simply tell the jury to disregard the improper argument. But when attorneys commit serious misconduct during closing, a judge might declare a mistrial, and if not, a court of appeal might overturn any conviction.

Arguments must be based on evidence. Most importantly, the conclusions that an attorney urges a jury to draw must be based on the evidence. Counsel cannot use the closing argument as an opportunity to refer to evidence that wasn't part of the trial. For example, an attorney can't argue that no similar crimes have been committed in the location in question since the defendant's arrest without having presented evidence to that effect.

Arguments cannot be irrelevant, confusing, or prejudicial. Judges can also prohibit or exclude arguments that are unrelated to the case, confusing, or inflammatory. For example, name-calling is generally forbidden. And asking the jury to "send a message" to other criminals by finding the defendant guilty may be improper since the focus is only whether the particular defendant on trial committed a crime. (State v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (2013).)

*emphasis mine.
**lots of emphasis on that last emphasis. you know why.

[-] MNByChoice@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I don't think this trail has a jury and is purely to set damages.

I say this is it is important to the implications.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

The judge basically is the jury. Well, that’s an oversimplification.

There’s still limitations on it, and all that really means is that the people/person making the decision are going to be far less tolerant of name calling and threats,

[-] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

I wonder if that all applies the same way, since this is a civil trial and there is no jury.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

in as far as there's limitations... sure.

I expect if he does do his own closing argument and he goes into making-threats-territory, or something, he's just gonna get muzzled.

I wonder if judges can order actual, literal ball gags for defendants who just won't shut up?

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 years ago

I saw a video of a judge that had to send the defendant into another courtroom, then they let him watch on TV and they would turn his mic on to answer questions and then just turn it off when he went a ramblin'.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I mean, that's effective... but imagine the memes of Trump in a ball gag... (on second thought, don't...I regret everything.)

Actually, that'd be a good set up for debates. put them in sound proof boxes so neither candidate can interfere if the mic is 'Off'. The other thing is, the mic gets sent to two channels, one of which is used to give subtitles, so we can still see the crazy.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago

I would start watching debates again if they made that the setup.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

It’d take issuing swords and dueling vests, for me. Maybe also a parry dagger.

[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 0 points 2 years ago

Haha, now you're just getting greedy!

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

if you don't ask, you don't get, so it's always worth taking a stab at it, right?

this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024

376 points (96.1% liked)

politics

31187 readers

2467 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News