I've been around for a while and one thing I've noticed is that liberal parties tend to allow themselves to be defeated in order to allow conservative parties to wear the blame of what liberal parties did. Maybe that is what is happening here. Democrats know that 2024 -2028 will be potentially cataclysmic and they don't want to be responsible for fixing the mess they created.
Our economy is teetering on the precipice. The current and past administrations have increased our debt to the point that we will be crushed under its weight.
Running objections are a dangerous endeavor. Objections must be timely and done with specificity. Failing to do so can lead to waiver and/or the appellate court ruling that there was error but it was harmless. To anyone who has done appellate work, harmless error is an all too often used refrain.
Also, running objections generally arise out of a line of inquiry which must contemplate both the depth and breadth of what is acceptable and what isn't. Opposing counsel will often try to push the envelope as to what falls within the constraints of the running objection. Also, in this case, the questions may be proper but the answers may not. Herein lies yet another problem with a running objection- a lay witness ( pun, noted) will be given deference in not fully understanding the running objection.
I have not read any motions in limine filed by the defense. However, if they filed a motion to exclude Daniels as a witness (prejudice vs probative value) and the judge denied the motion, defense must still timely object to her testimony.
Instead, the Defense just sat there and let Stormy say anything she wanted to say. The Judge did nothing. He just sat there like a buffoon.
Generally, in order to have an appealable issue your objections must be timely or you risk waiver. In addition, an attorney who intentionally engages in ineffective assistance of counsel is engaging in a very dangerous game.
Isn't this kind of irrelevant prejudicial “testimony” grounds for dismissal?
Potentially. However, this judge appears to have skin in the game so I would be shocked if he would ever rule in favor of the defendant.
I've done many,many criminal cases from homicide, to white collar crime, to RICO drug cases. In this particular case, I've read and reread the indictment and “supporting” Statement of Facts. I sincerely don't see a crime here. This is one of those crime on top of a crime cases. The prosecution failed to articulate what the other crime (other than the business record entries) is. As for the business records, the claim that legal expenses is criminal is tenuous at best. The entries refer to a NDA, a legal contract. It sort of sounds like a bookkeeper could have thought that the payments were legal expenses. Honestly, I can't figure out this legally and factually untenable case other than it being a political persecution.
Yep. That is exactly where it came from. If you get a chance, see “Love and Death” which is one of my all time favorite comedies along with Dr Strangelove .