The jury has been chosen for Donald Trump's hush money trial and the judge has moved on to what's called a Sandoval hearing. This is where the prosecution explains the kinds of questions it would like to ask Trump if he decides to take the stand. For my own amusement and yours, here's a selection of excerpts from the New York Times coverage:
We are now hearing from Matthew Colangelo, a prosecutor with the district attorney’s office, who says that the civil fraud trial finding from the judge — “repeated fraud and illegality” — would be highly relevant in calling Trump's testimony into question.
....Colangelo is bringing up a moment during the civil fraud trial when the judge found that Trump had violated a gag order in that case. The judge in that case summoned Trump to the stand and found that he had lied, and said that his testimony rang “hollow and untrue.”
....Justice Merchan just read another judge’s determination aloud, from a case in which Trump sued HIllary Clinton. That judge found that the lawsuit was "completely frivolous, both factually and legally,” and “was brought in bad faith for an improper purpose.”
Justice Merchan reads another quote from the judge in that suit, in which he labeled Trump a “sophisticated litigant who is repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries." The judge said: “He is the mastermind of strategic abuse of the judicial process, and he cannot be seen as a litigant blindly following the advice of a lawyer.” Justice Merchan sounds inclined to allow prosecutors to cross-examine Trump on this matter.
....We are down to the last issue on the list, Trump’s 2018 agreement to dissolve his charitable foundation after he was sued by the New York attorney general’s office.
In other words, Trump is a congenital liar and nothing he says on the stand is worth the spit he uses to utter it. That sounds like a very reasonable thing to confront Trump with. It also suggests Trump would be insane to testify on his own behalf.
every time trump lies on the stand prosecutors should be allowed to spray his face with a water bottle
Why not bear spray?
Now, it seems like it shouldn't be up to Donald Trump to decide if he feels like testifying under oath, and that if the prosecution thinks that they want him on the stand, he should be complelled to go on the stand regardless of what he or his lawyers want. Is there some fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system I'm not following here?
Wait, are you being serious? The government can't force a defendant to testify against themself. That's part of the Constitution, which you've undoubtedly heard of as "taking the 5th"
The government can ask a defendant questions, and the defendant, if they so choose, can refuse to answer any question by invoking the 5th.
Donald Trump, being an idiot, would almost certainly perjure himself immediately. But he would have the option to not do so and it would all be quite legal.
Trump is also on record as saying that people who plead the 5th are always guilty.
Basically what I'm saying is, deferring to the defense on the decision of whether or not to allow testimony sounds like more of a custom/norm than an actual mandate/requirement. I mean, otherwise, nobody could ever be deposed pre-trial on that basis.
I have to assume you're new to the US or live somewhere else on earth. But the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination has long (like two-plus centuries long) been held to mean that a defendant cannot be forced to testify at all in criminal trials. Mainly this is because, if he/she actually did the crime, he/she is going to have to lie under oath on the stand when the prosecution asks "did you do it?" or any other question that indicates that the defendant did it... and then, if the defendant loses the case, the defendant suffers the punishments of both the crime and a new charge of perjury under oath.
And criminal defendants are almost never disposed pre-trial. Doing so would require them to waive their 5th amendment rights... and every defense lawyer advises "keep your mouth shut to the police or anyone else" the instant you're arrested. The only ones that get disposed before trial are the ones turning state's witness against other defendants for the same or related crimes.
You're confusing civil and criminal procedure. The defendant in a civil case can be deposed because the right not to be compelled to give evidence against yourself only applies in a criminal case. The defendant in a criminal case CAN'T BE COMPELLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE, whether in pre-trial discovery or at trial.
No, you're wrong, The Fifth Amendment is certainly applicable to witnesses (it's not limited to defendants) in non-criminal proceedings (including Congressional hearings). While it would not preclude deposing or calling a defendant as a witness (as it essentially does in criminal cases), a witness in a civil matter can refuse to answer questions on Fifth Amendment grounds because the answer might tend to provide evidence that would incriminate him or her. And they often do.
Right. A witness in either a civil or criminal matter cannot refuse to be questioned but can refuse to answer individual questions on the ground that the answer may tend to incriminate. A defendant in a criminal proceeding can simply refuse to be questioned.
Please learn a little criminal procedure before confidently claiming completely false things like that [1]. You're worse than ChatGPT.
It is entirely up to the defendant if they want to take the stand. The government cannot force them to testify.
[1] Start here, maybe. https://cheatography.com/parkeraz/cheat-sheets/criminal-procedure/
No, the government cannot ask you questions. You can refuse to talk to the cops (and you should, always, without exception) and then you can refuse to testify at your own trial. You're just wrong. Wrongity wrong wrong wrong!
El wrongo.
Mucho wrong.
Extremely wrong.
Donald Trump is most certainly not an idiot.
No. No no no no. People here are conflating civil and criminal cases. In a civil case, any party can be required to testify by any other party (whether during trial or through a pre-trial deposition), and the witness has the right to invoke the 5th Amendment on a question-by-question basis to avoid giving responses that could give rise to criminal liability. Jurors are then instructed that they may infer that the withheld answers would have been unfavorable to the party invoking the 5th Amendment. In a criminal case, NOBODY can force the defendant to take the stand - or decline to take the stand. The decision on whether to testify or not testify is the defendant's and the defendant's alone. With that said, I would be quite surprised if Donald Trump ultimately testifies in this case. He'll bluster now, but when push comes to shove, he's a terrible witness and I suspect that he knows it.
Yes, you fundamentally have no idea what common law and criminal law is in common law.
Defendants can not be compelled to testify, simple as that, from the lowliest criminal to Trump.
US Dollar 2,000 in a Single Online Day Due to its position, the United States offers a plethora of opportunities for those seeking employment. With so many options accessible, it might be difficult to know where to start. You may choose the ideal online housekeeping strategy with the help vz-02 of this post.
Begin here>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://sparetime03.blogspot.com/
Wouldn't we all love to have him testify? It would behoove the media to press him to testify. Although, he's probably too much of a coward to take the stand or make a commitment.
If Agent Orange testifies, he would be compelled to answer questions during cross examination that relates to the subject matter of questions asked during direct examination by his lawyers. He could plead the 5th for other questions. (legal expertise provided by a 5 minute Google search)
I assume that Vegas will have the betting odds of him testifying or not. He would be a fucking moron to do so however. Since he is a fucking moron, who knows what will happen.
Once you decide to take the stand, I don't think you can plead the fifth.
It would make sense to me that if you answer questions posed by your lawyer, that a question by the prosecution on cross examination on that same subject should be answered.
Perhaps a real lawyer will clear this up, or we can wait until its "showtime" in NYC. Trump does not have any real brains, but he has the killer instincts of a Great White Shark, and is real good going after prey that is weaker than him.
I think back to the deposition where Bill Clinton was blindsided by the Monica Lewinsky question. I imagine he would have loved to simply refuse to answer the question. He's a very bright guy and plenty hip to all the legal stuff and if he could have gotten away with simply brushing the question off then he totally would have.
That was a civil case, in which the defendant can be compelled to testify, or be deposed. They can take the 5th regarding specific questions but, in many states, doing so can be used against them in the case, unlike in a criminal prosecution. However, you can only plead the 5th if answering would implicate you in a crime, not just a tort.
Aside from which, Clinton thought that taking the 5th would be terrible for him politically.
As bad as his decision-making is sometimes, I think his feral self-protection instinct is strong enough for him to realize how suicidal taking the stand would be.
Suicidal? There's not really that much on the line*, and Trump might figure his best bet is to use the opportunity on the witness stand to engage in campaign rhetoric.
*There's a very strong chance he gets convicted whether he testifies or not. I doubt it makes much difference.
*There's a very strong chance he gets probation only.
*There's an overwhelmingly strong chance that, if he is sentenced to prison, he'll do something like 6-10 months.
*There's zero chance he'll report to prison before the election. If he's convicted he'll immediately appeal, and the appeal won't be decided until 2025. Bank on it.
Trump probably won't help himself if he testifies, sure, but "suicidal" is a bit dramatic. The fact is Trump has already beaten the criminal justice system, at least in terms of the possibility of using that system to block him from a second term. It's long been obvious to me for many months that only the electorate can prevent that.
No sane lawyer (which, granted, probably rules out anyone still willing to work for Tubby) would put Trump on the stand, because a) they know he'd lie and b) solicitation of said perjury would get the lawyer disbarred/jailed.
Everyone - including the MAGA people - already know Trump is a big fat liar. The MAGA people know this and they simply don't care. They love the smack talk and the insults and the bluster and - of course - the lies because they like to give the libs the finger.
So, what happens if Trump is found guilty? Is he jailed/imprisoned? If he is sentenced to jail/prison of course he will appeal. Will he be free until the appeal process is complete? How does this stuff work in New York?
He certainly can be sent to jail and he certainly will appeal and it is likely he will be free while pursuing the appeal. I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are in this particular crime(s), but I am sure the prosecution would ask for prison time.
The question of whether he takes the stand - as has been said repeatedly in the comments, this is his choice and his alone. I had a client once who was about to be charged with fraud and I told the client to shut up, look at me and never say anything without my consent. I also told the prosecutor that if a grand jury was empanelled, my client would simply take the 5th. We settled with monetary damages and the case was withdrawn.
In this case, his attorneys would clearly tell him, in no uncertain terms, "Don't do it". But it is not up to them. It is up to him. He is doing enough damage to himself during the performances he indulges in outside the court - all of which can be used against him.
It isn't clear that Trump could be sent to prison. (It's also unlikely that this trial would produce that at sentencing.) The U.S. Secret Service would have to be involved in any such decision, and it's possible that the conclusion would be that it would be impossible for them to provide him adequate security. I think it's more likely that we would be sentenced to house arrest, probably with some fairly onerous conditions.
So, what happens if Trump is found guilty?
(1) 80% chance of probation.
(2) 99% chance of a sentence of less than a year if (1) proves wrong.
(3) 100% he won't start any sentence in 2024, because of the appeals process.
I realize I'm late to the party, but so what if the Defendant takes the stand to lie, as per usual? Perjury is not a crime when he does it! Just as "gag orders" are totally irrelevant, and violating them hold no penalty.