Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 18
If you are interested in a career in law, maybe as a criminal defense lawyer, you'd have to conduct a pretty extensive search to find a better example to learn from about what NOT to do in court than what occurred in New York City in Trump's hush money / campaign finance fraud trial on May 9, 2024. Lawyers for the defense shot themselves in the foot repeatedly all day.
It's important to remember the context of the witnesses called to testify. Stormy Daniels was continuing her testimony that began earlier in the week. Her actions and Trump's actions specifically towards her were and are NOT the core focus of the trial. Daniels was called to testify by the prosecution because Trump refused in public and in the course of the trial to stipulate that he had an "affair" with Daniels. For the purposes of his TRIAL, it doesn't matter what the "affair" constituted. Only that Daniels had one take (something happened) and Trump had the opposite take (nothing happened). Yet he paid Daniels $130,000 to not take her story public. From a criminal trial standpoint, the smartest thing Trump could have done would have been to stipulate that something DID happen between consenting adults and eliminate any reason for the prosecution to call her to testify.
But for political reasons (then and now), Trump cannot admit the event occurred. And he wouldn't allow his lawyers to stipulate to the event but instead demanded they DENY the event took place, thus impugning the integrity of the prosecution's witness... Triggering two and a half days of testimony and cross-examination. Here's where the Trump lawyerin' brain trust really showed their stuff.
On May 9, in the course of grilling Stormy Daniels about a variety of tweets, Daniels managed to trick Susan Necheles (Trump's lawyer assigned to cross-examine Daniels to avoid a man-versus-woman dynamic in front of the jury) into explicitly referring to her own client as the "orange turd." Not once. Not twice. But three times. If derogatory language about your defendant is involved in a legal point you insist on making in front of the jury, it's a REALLY GOOD idea to have the WITNESS bring up that language and say it. It's a REALLY BAD idea for the defense counsel to introduce derogatory language about their own client. Psychologically, doing so is very likely to convey to the jury that the defense ACCEPTS that language for describing their client.
On at least two other occasions on May 9, Susan Necheles attempted to harangue Daniels about different tweets, claiming that Daniels explicitly said X and Y. Twice, Daniels calmly and simply denied Necheles' assertation, saying "No." Twice, Necheles made a big production of bringing up the alleged tweets on the big flag screen TVs placed in front of the judge and jury to drill into those tweets to prove her point... ....Only to find that those exact tweets proved Daniels was correct and did NOT say what Necheles alleged. Necheles did this TWICE.
After Daniels concluded her testimony, Trump's lawyers again filed a motion with the judge to dismiss the case, stating Daniel's testimony was "prejudicial" and prevented the jury from reaching a fair conclusion. This prompted a lengthy sidebar between the judge, the defense counsel and the prosecution, presumably with the jury dismissed to a break room. In that sidebar, Judge Merchan lectured Trump's attorneys that he didn't want many of the details that came up in Daniel's testimony introduced either. Merchan further told Trump's attorneys that "hey, if you were paying attention, you noticed I sustained the vast majority of your objections, yet at some point you went silent and didn't raise any objections to some of the most off-topic responses from the witness. It isn't my job to do your job. More importantly, YOU OPENED YOURSELF to this testimony by denying the claim of the said sexual encounter then aggressively cross-examined the witness. That allows The People to defend their witness and ask a much wider range of questions."
Some commentators believe Trump's lawyers are trying to sow the seeds for a later mistrial on grounds of ineffective counsel but that Marchan likely sees that ploy as well and is actively attempting to thwart it. In general, failure to object DURING a trial isn't an absolute block on filing for appeal on that issue but when the defense fails to object on (say) five to seven points then later attempts an appeal based on those elements, appellate courts will not be very tolerant and will likely reject the appeal.
If that weren't enough, the final witness for May 9 was a personal assistant of Trump at The Trump Organization and testified to Trump's micromanagement of even the most trivial of expenses he incurred. At least, expenses that should be trivial for a billionaire. One example involved a $695 picture frame from Tiffany's that was under consideration for a picture of Trump's mother. Did Trump need to approve that? ABSOLUTELY. And make sure he got his 15% discount. Another example was a yearly membership fee at a private country club costing about $6995 per year. Could we pay that to keep the membership lit or do we need to ask DJT? ABSOLUTELY we need to ask DJT and see if they can give me a discount for the next couple of years while President cuz I won't be able to visit the club and while you're at it, see if I can skip paying the mandatory meals fee.
Again, those bills had nothing to do with the actual charges involved with the alleged crimes but those stories meshed perfectly with prior testimony from Hope Hicks about Trump's micromanagement of EVERYTHING around him. The testimony cemented the prosecution's core case that a) Trump was AWARE of the scandal within the campaign, b) Trump APPROVED the payoff scheme to avoid cratering his 2016 campaign, c) Trump APPROVED the fraudulently mis-directed allocation of the payoff cost through The Trump Organization's books and d) Trump APPROVED each of the deferred payments to Michael Cohen.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 5
I agree. I find it bizarre that the defense focused so much time and energy on Daniels. Also, by focusing on her credibility, they have opened it up that prosecutors can ask Donald Trump similar questions about their relationship should he ever testify. Now, if he testifies, Trump can be asked point blank under oath if he ever had a relationship with Daniels because like you said, Trump's attorneys opened up those types of questions when they attacked Daniels credibility.
If like you mentioned, defense lawyers simply acknowledged something happened between Trump and Daniels then those types of questions would never have been allowed to be asked of Trump. Now his defense attorneys just opened up a huge minefield for Trump to walk through should he ever testify. It greatly increases the chances Trump perjures himself on the stand, but it also greatly increases the chance that he destroys his credibility with the jury as well.
Think about it. Let's say Trump really never did have any sort of relationship with Daniels. He is telling the 100% truth and she is 100% lying. Now if Trump testifies, and the prosecutors cannot catch him in a lie, they can still attack his credibility by asking him questions like "Why did you give Ms. Daniels $130,000 if she is lying?", "Are you in the habit of giving large sums of money to any horsefaced woman who comes forward ready to tells lies about relationships with you?" There is simply no way for him to answer those questions without looking non-credible to the jury. Questions like those would never have been allowed if the defense had never made Daniels credibility an issue, but they did so now they would come up.
By making it about Daniels' credibility, they are also making it about Trump's credibility on an issue he has no way of looking remotely credible on.
Put a different way, I am pretty sure that even some of Trump's most devoted cultists probably think he had an affair with Daniels. They do not care and they are ok with him lying about it, but they think he probaby did it. So if Trump has no credibility on whether he had a relationship with Daniels, why would the jury give him any credibility on his actions regarding the business records surrounding the payment?
It was a huge self-inflicted error from a legal point of view.
No. of Recommendations: 10
I agree. I find it bizarre that the defense focused so much time and energy on Daniels.
I have read multiple stories that Trump is upset with his lawyering, and has complained to them that they’re not “doing enough” or “arguing in his favor.” This produces a reaction in the lawyers to do more, e.g. “spend more time with Stormy Daniels on the stand.”
Best movie case I remember is “A Few Good Men” when Demi Moore makes an objection, then makes it again, and the judge says “Overruled! The witness is an *expert witness*” or words to that effect. There are times when you let something go so you don’t reinforce it in the jury’s mind. There are times when you have to object so that it becomes a point for appeal.
A smart lawyer knows which is which. Trump doesn’t, and his lawyers are apparently cowed into doing what he wants instead of what’s right. The other possibility, of course, is that they’re just incompetent, which puts the odds at 100/100.
No. of Recommendations: 6
A smart lawyer knows which is which. Trump doesn’t, and his lawyers are apparently cowed into doing what he wants instead of what’s right.
---------------
If Trump is convicted in this case, part of the satisfaction to be enjoyed will be the knowledge that he had a direct hand in his own undoing by essentially trying to micromanage his lawyers like he micromanages everything else in life. Earlier in the week, someone interviewed about the events in court mentioned that Trump had a saying about his strategy for running his businesses. It was something to the effect of "Hire very smart people then second guess everything they do" or words to that effect. The irony (and humor) in all of this is that Trump is not only proving how flawed this strategy is via his micromanagement (and likely constant heckling behind the scenes) of his lawyers but he is also proving that he ISN'T hiring smart people. No respectable, qualified lawyer would voluntarily accept Trump as a client for any civil or criminal case.
As a follow-up, it is worth mentioning the aide from The Trump Organization who testified on Thursday regarding Trump's micromanagement of routine expenses was cross-examined by defense counsel on May 10 and seemed to contradict about thirty percent of her prior answers from May 9. The common thread behind her apparent changes in testimony was that in hindsight, her May 9 testimony included answers about Trump's state of mind about the campaign that were her OPINION of what he was likely thinking rather than questions of whether she had direct knowledge of his opinion and state of mind. When cross-examined May 10, the questions seemed to have similar wordings but she was less committed in her answers.
The prosecution did not follow up with questions but it wasn't clear if they a) didn't detect the change in nuance in her answers, b) decided to hold questions until after introducing other testimony as they build their case or c) figured she did enough damage where they wanted it to Trump's case and didn't want to cloud that prior impression upon the jury. Will this aide wind up being yet another MAGA (Making Aides Get Attorneys) victim requiring MORE legal counsel to escape perjury charges? Stay tuned.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 4
As usual, great post WTH.
What puzzles me the most, is the fact that Trump tried to hide this in the first place.
His cult accepts anything he says or does hook, line, sinker, and fishing pole.
Someone is accusing me of having an affair? Good! Find 10 more women that will accuse me of having affairs. Shows how virile I am.
Evangelicals love him even though he breaks at least 1 commandment every day.
Shoot a person in broad daylight on 5th Avenue. Good, they deserved it.
Shoot a puppy in a gravel pit, no problem. Well, maybe a little pushback. Maybe.
As is often the case, it’s not the act, it’s the cover up.
Yes, his lawyers are terrible because they generally work for free, knowing they’re going to get stiffed.
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think counsel is obligated to comply with the wishes of the client as long as they aren't illegal. Though they always can resign.
No. of Recommendations: 3
I agree. I find it bizarre that the defense focused so much time and energy on Daniels.
Jay Kuo feels it may be a 'flood the zone with shit' tactic. With that mess, they might appeal on the grounds that all that sh!t is too prejudicial for Trump to get a fair trial on the actual crime charges.
He also feels Merchan is aware of that potential tactic and has written as much as he reviews the progress of the trial.
No. of Recommendations: 3
https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/misdeeds-mistrial..."Judge Merchan was careful to build a record of his decision, knowing it would be front and center on appeal in the event of a guilty verdict. Per reporter Katie Phang, who attended the hearing in person, Merchan made the following statements part of that record:
On his careful review of his prior decisions:
MERCHAN: Following your motion for a mistrial on Tuesday, I went back to chambers, I pulled out my decisions on both motions for limine, the omnibus decision, and the transcript from Tuesday. I went back to make sure that there were guidelines and no inconsistencies, and after having done so, I came away satisfied."
No. of Recommendations: 12
One of the things I've learned watching the Trump saga is that the abiliity of lawyers to quit a client is limited once trial begins. I presume this is to prevent "quit of counsel" from becoming a delay tactic by defendants.
"I'm sorry your Honor, it's the dangest thing, but my tenth lawyer just resigned from defending me so I'm gonna need a continuance for another six months while I bring my eleventh lawyer up to speed on my total innocence." The basic theme of most state policies regarding a change in counsel puts the court's needs (for continuity and resolution of the case) first, the client's needs (competent counsel, fair trial) second and the lawyer's interests in distant third. Failure to get paid for example is NOT considered adequate reason to quit a client unless continued representation would materially impair the lawyer's financial condition. Since many attorneys work at law firms that presumably have the cash flow to absorb a few hits, a single client's failure to pay is seldom enough to allow a lawyer to resign from a case if the defendant doesn't agree.
The ABA itemizes the allowable circumstances for terminating a relationship with a client in Model Rule 1.16(b):
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_re...Those rules boil down to:
1) the client persists in a criminal or fraudulent course of action;
2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud;
3) the client insists on taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which he fundamentally disagrees;
4) the client fails to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services (after an appropriate warning of the possible withdrawal);
5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer;
6) the representation has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or
7) other good cause for withdrawal exists.
Personally, I'm starting to think this whole Donald Trump phenomena is turning out to be a vast, masterfully planned conspiracy of the military-legal complex to eventually trigger the full employment of every American who has at any point held a law license. It's almost as if a few really forward-thinking lawyers figured out in the mid-1980s that if they could protect Trump from the consequences of his actons for maybe 20-30 years, they would eventually create a monster so proficient at criming it would produce an exponential explosion of litigation. Sure, a few lawyers working DIRECTLY for Trump would get screwed but thousands of others would rake in millions of dollars for thousands of hours of paid work trying to defend the thousands of secondary idiots sucked into his orbit.
As another post today indicated, another investigation has identified $100 million in unpaid tax obligations on Trump's Chicago property which will likely trigger another $30 million in legal fees and two years of tied up courtrooms attempting to prosecute those charges.
WTH
