Posted on 04/19/2024 8:39:41 PM PDT by bitt
Prosecutors made the unusual decision this week to remain almost entirely mum about the order in which they planned to call their first witnesses in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial in New York.
Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor working on behalf of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, said Friday evening he would let Trump’s attorneys know the name of their first witness on Sunday night, the day before opening arguments in the case are set to begin, according to a report from the courtroom. Trump’s defense team had asked for the names of the first three witnesses that prosecutors would call.
However, Steinglass warned that if Trump posted about the first witness on social media, he would cease extending defense attorneys the courtesy of a heads-up.
Prosecutors and defense attorneys receive lists of witnesses before the trial, but they do not know the order in which the opposing parties will call their witnesses. It is common practice for parties to give advanced notice to each other of the general order in which the witnesses will appear.
Steinglass’s remarks about waiting until Sunday to provide the name of the first witness came after prosecutors initially declined altogether to offer any information about the first witnesses they planned to question. Trump’s attorney Todd Blanche had asked on Thursday if Steinglass could tell him who the first three would be.
Steinglass “balked” at the request and Blanche appeared “mystified” by Steinglass’s negative response to him, according to reports circulated by a pool of courtroom reporters.
“Mr. Trump has been tweeting about the witnesses,” Steinglass told Judge Juan Merchan. “We’re not telling them who the witnesses are.”
Blanche then asked Merchan if he could have the information if he promised Trump would not post on social media about the witnesses, to which Merchan replied that he did not believe Blanche could make such a vow.
Attorney Karen Agnifilo, a Trump critic who formerly worked in top positions in the Manhattan DA’s office, told the Washington Examiner in an email that prosecutors denying defense attorneys notice about their witness order was abnormal, but she also indicated that she viewed it as justifiable.
more..
Yeah, but damn near everything conservative states do nowadays seems to get overturned by the Feds, so the “reaching down” part seems a unevenly applied.
The Constitution (often I think via the Feds citing the 14th) is also supposed to extend protection of our unalienable (granted by God) rights, including especially those listed in the Bill of Rights (though We the People have more rights not listed) to We the People in the states.
New York has chosen to single out essentially ONE person, President Trump, in a grossly unprecedented manner which is functionally a bill of attainder, and the hits just keep coming.
We the People have the unalienable right (listed and not listed) not to be singled out (lawfare) by government at any level.
When that CRIME is occurring before our very eyes and can easily be seen by appellate courts, why should it be allowed to proceed?
You will probably laugh at that, but that is what people are seeing and thinking and feeling as we watch this travesty.
So no surprise we are a skeptical, and do not want to see a former President randomly languishing for four years in a prison (like “J6” people in Washington), with the US Congressional Democrats subsequently (as they seem to be planning) having viciously, in another grossly obvious bill of attainder, taken away his Secret Service protection.
I would think the Trump defense team would have sent a 911 call to the Supreme Court for judicial assault.
True but nobody ever accused the fascist libs of having any logic.
Doesn’t work like that
Everyone with two brain cells knows this could never hold up to any appeal, so they’re just going whole hog to get a guilty verdict. This is wrong to the Nth degree and when all the dust settles their should be a slew of people losing their law licenses.
We’re Waaay beyond skeptical, Gus.
Is this why Bragg is mum on the nature of the felony that he used to bootstrap his expired misdemeanors into a felony?
The Trump team can't defend against the underlying felony because Bragg won't say what it is, so most people assume that it is a campaign finance violation -- which is federal, not state.
Until Bragg divulges what the felony is, nobody can go to federal court to challenge it. Once the trial starts and the felony is known, what is the recourse at that point to go to a federal court?
-PJ
bookmark
Does trump have good lawyers?
Seems everything in the court room is going the prosecutors way.
How can trump even get a fair verdict in a state that never votes republican and where jurors are liberals
When basic civil rights are violated there is nothing wrong with Federal courts stepping in.
Sixth Amendment.
Once they get a guilty verdict, they won’t care about the appeal, it will be “Trump is a convicted felon” until the end of time.
Look at Hunter’s lawyers appealing everything, even before the trial starts.
Is that Judge Van de Lay?
Jerry bery bery bad man.
We’re no longer a republic.
As long as that’s the case, the law is whatever Deep State says it is.
If we must accept all this bullying from our court system ...we are not a free country.
“Isn’t it illegal to do this? Isn’t prosecution required to present all evidence and witnesses to defense?
Such a farce. These jerks know full well this whole thing will be thrown out AFtER they install Chomo Joe . This is only to keep Trump off the campaign trail.”
I have witnessed several key trials, run by democrats, wherein evidence was withheld to the defendants.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/17/rittenhouse-defense-accuses-prosecutors-of-withholding-video/
These are just a couple of obvious problems. What I have noticed is that in these politically charged trials, the prosecutions being politically motivated tend to deny the defense a fair trial. Judges who are not impartial and prosecutors who are not impartial, lead inevitably to impartial judicial proceedings.
Virtually every lawyer who is impartial has come out and said that Trump can’t get a fair trial in NYC. The Judge and his family have a financial interest in convicting him. The prosecutor ran on convicting Trump of something. Any one of these should be enough for an appeal. Withholding potential evidence, even the witness order, could be seen to attempt to impair the defense. So logically speaking, your right, it’s a political move to get Spy ring leader re-elected- Joe Biden.
PURE EVIL!!!
IS IT LEGAL TO DO SO???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.