No. of Recommendations: 10
I don't have any complaint about cases where counsel is seeking a ruling based upon poorly written state or federal law, something that is highly likely given the lack of legal expertise among elected Senators and Representatives across the country. I've seen numerous cases where the law as written and interpreted by anyone with an eighth grade understanding of grammar contained logical inconsistencies raising questions about the actual intent of the law or the penalties proscribed. There are many cases where motions are warranted due to suspected mis-handling or withholding of exculpatory evidence on the part of prosecutors or police.
In the case of Trump, it seems 90 percent of the actions are purely aimed at burning the clock and wasting the judge's time, which means the motions are PURELY delaying justice. Trump's argument that the DC judge should recuse herself for having made comments in prior trials is a good example. Trump's attorneys stated she should recuse herself because in a sentencing hearing of a case involving January 6 events, she stated that the fact others who are also responsible for the insurrection were not yet facing justice was no argument for her to impose a lesser sentence on the convicted felon before her. Trump argued that statement reflected bias which could harm his case before the same judge. In reality, judges are REQUIRED to explain their rationale for sentencing so such comments are completely in line with their normal professional conduct. The prosecution knows this and Trump's attorneys likely know this. The public may not understand it but for the judge to spend a DAY on responding to the motion is a complete waste of time. In other motions, the arguments submitted by the defendents' counsel border on bad faith on the part of counsel, who are obligated to represent their client vigorously but are also officers of the court with an obligation to upholding the integrity of the court's operation as well.
To the extent that these tactics succeed in delaying justice, they reflect a bias towards the wealthy who can hire a team of attorneys (or convince a bunch of D-list attorneys to eventually work without pay as with Trump) and stretch the case out while a poor defendent who cannot afford the legal fees is more immediately subjected to trial and likely punishment.
WTH
