Trump was forced to listen silently as potential jurors offered their unvarnished

ExpressLane said:
The accused has a right to be in court. The judge does not have the right to force the accused to be in court. What the judge is doing is not legal.
Click to expand...

The defendant is required to be in court for felonies for most parts of the legal proceeding.

"[FONT=&quot](a) [/FONT][FONT=&quot]When Required.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Unless this rule, [/FONT]Rule 5[FONT=&quot], or [/FONT]Rule 10[FONT=&quot] provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:[/FONT][FONT=&quot](1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot](3) sentencing.[/FONT]
 
It’s the law in New York and it’s the law in Florida. I suspect it’s the law and all 50 states.
 
Jarod said:
It’s the law in New York and it’s the law in Florida. I suspect it’s the law and all 50 states.
Click to expand...

So you think the laws apply to Trump? That is part of what this trial is about. He is trying to intimidate the jurors and is showing disdain for the court.
 
Last edited:
BidenPresident said:
NEW YORK (AP) — He seems “selfish and self-serving,” said one woman.

The way he carries himself in public “leaves something to be desired,” said another.

His “negative rhetoric and bias,” said another man, is what is “most harmful.”

Over the past week, Donald Trump has been forced to sit inside a frigid New York courtroom and listen to a parade of potential jurors in his criminal hush money trial share their unvarnished assessments of him.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-jurors-hush-money-criticism-b4fe05a61ed566a587523d1120b46a76
Click to expand...

6th Amendment, trashed by Stalinist judge..,.again.
 
BidenPresident said:
NEW YORK (AP) — He seems “selfish and self-serving,” said one woman.

The way he carries himself in public “leaves something to be desired,” said another.

His “negative rhetoric and bias,” said another man, is what is “most harmful.”

Over the past week, Donald Trump has been forced to sit inside a frigid New York courtroom and listen to a parade of potential jurors in his criminal hush money trial share their unvarnished assessments of him.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-trial-jurors-hush-money-criticism-b4fe05a61ed566a587523d1120b46a76
Click to expand...

No doubt one of the few times in his silver spoon life he's heard the truth about what real, regular citizens think of him. Not that it will change anything, of course. He'll just file it away as "libtards in NYC."
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
No doubt one of the few times in his silver spoon life he's heard the truth about what real, regular citizens think of him. Not that it will change anything, of course. He'll just file it away as "libtards in NYC."
Click to expand...

Trump brags about getting away with crimes. Why should any juror pretend not to judge him such.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
why was the jury allowed to accuse the defendant?.......never heard of that before.......must be NYC criminal procedure....
Click to expand...

Offering your opinion and knowledge of a defendant, esp. a well-known one like #TRE45ON, is part of voir dire. Both sides need to determine if bias is present. One would think that an actual attorney would know this. Or were you down at the women's health clinic screaming at the clients the day when they covered voir dire in law school?
 
Walt said:
That is one of the basic rights of a court. Courts have had the right to compel people to be in court since the beginning of the English Law system. It was especially important before there were lawyers present.

Missing court dates means that your bail will be revoked, and you have to stay in jail.
Click to expand...

In a civil case, it can also mean that you lose by default if you don't show up.
 
We got full pay from our employer while on jury duty--aren't unions great?--so it was like a paid vacation.

The secret was to act really clueless in voir dire to increase your chance of getting selected.
Sort of like doing a Rich Little impression of Oom or EE.

That seemed to be what both sides liked best.
 
Will a Mountain of Evidence Be Enough to Convict Trump?

Aides and friends who lied on Mr. Trump’s behalf will take the witness stand to testify against him.

They include: David Pecker, the tabloid publisher who bought and buried damaging stories about Mr. Trump; Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman who tried to spin reporters; and Mr. Cohen, the fixer who paid Ms. Daniels. Mr. Pecker, who ran the company that owned The National Enquirer, is set to go first, and is expected to recount for the jury several conversations with Mr. Trump about the hush money, according to a person familiar with the plan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/21/nyregion/trump-trial-hush-money-evidence.html
 
NiftyNiblick said:
We got full pay from our employer while on jury duty--aren't unions great?--so it was like a paid vacation.

The secret was to act really clueless in voir dire to increase your chance of getting selected.
Sort of like doing a Rich Little impression of Oom or EE.

That seemed to be what both sides liked best.
Click to expand...

Mr. Owl always gets tapped when he's been called for jury duty. I think it's because he comes across as unemotional and rational, rather like a human version of Spock. lol
 
ExpressLane said:
The accused has a right to be in court. The judge does not have the right to force the accused to be in court. What the judge is doing is not legal.
Click to expand...
Nothing about these trials...particularly this one, are legal or ethical...
Free publicity, though...No one respects a collapse of our justice system...and that's what's happening... Votes for Trump...every...single...day...
Watching this backfire on Democrats is something else...
 
ExpressLane said:
The accused has a right to be in court. The judge does not have the right to force the accused to be in court. What the judge is doing is not legal.
Click to expand...
More INGORIANCE and LIES as always, from you.


... Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43. Rule 43(a)(2) flatly establishes a defendant’s obligation to attend his trial: “defendant must be present at … every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict.” Rule 43(b) creates a few exceptions, for misdemeanor offenses, conferences, legal hearings, and sentencing corrections. Then Rule 43(c) speaks of how presence can be deemed “waived”:...


cite
Click to expand...

While i do not agree that anyone should be required to attend their trial, and if they want to be tried in absentia that should be allowed, ... unless and until the SC rules otherwise, it IS REQUIRED currently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top