DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
That may be binary, but sentencing isn't. They should have some idea of the severity of the crime to be able to hand down the appropriate sentence.
US District Judge Aileen Cannon...
- Thread starter cluelusshusbund
- Start date
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
As others have already pointed out, this is not necessary. Do the juries in murder trials have to examine the corpse, or the alleged murder weapon? Of course not. They decide based on the evidence as presented to them by the testimony of expert witnesses and based on the questions and answers given in court under examination.
It's no good you trying to make up new rules of jurisprudence to get Trump off the hook. I repeat: a federal grand jury and prosecutors have decided there is a case to answer in court here. These are legally trained and legally advised people. They would not do that if they didn't think the law in question had been broken.
A federal grand jury is not some organ of Trump's imaginary "deep state". So it's not a witch hunt against an innocent ex-president.
Sculptor was referring to the jury, though, and the jury don't determine the sentence, do they? I thought that would be, if required, at another hearing, and based solely on which side of the bed the judge got out of that morning?
If there are levels of severity that Trump could be found guilty of that would somehow be dependent upon the nature of the material itself, beyond it merely being officially "classified", then okay, but I don't think that's the case here. I would be very surprised if the content of the documents themselves are revealed, even if (heavily) redacted, as it is not needed to find Trump innocent or guilty.
For sentencing, should he be found guilty, then I'm also not sure that the actual content of the documents matters a great deal. Either the "Classified" stamp means something or it does not. It is not up to the person mishandling the files, or even the judge, to determine what is or is not significant. The fact that the file was "Classified" should say it sufficiently, or it means little. I see the charges as relating to a breach of process, not to the importance of the documents involved. But, sure, should he be found guilty I'm sure both sides will do and argue whatever they can to help the judge arrive at the most appropriate sentence, so I'm not saying it wouldn't be raised for consideration, only that in my view it is rather irrelevant.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
nm
Juries get shown evidence in court. They do not get to "examine" it.
For example, in a medical case, the jury is not given the patient's medical records to examine, since that's a violation of privacy. It goes something like this:
Prosecution: Doctor X, can you tell me what this is? (holding up a radiographic film so both the doctor and the jury can see it)
Doctor: It's an X-ray of the patient's femur.
Prosecution: Can you tell me what it indicates?
Doctor: It shows a distal non-union of the femur.
Then the defense gets to call their witnesses to say what they want to say about it. The jury does not examine the film; they are unable to read it, and showing it to them violates the patient's privacy.
The jury is NEVER allowed to examine such evidence. Imagine, for example, a nefarious juror bringing a USB stick with child porn on it and cleverly adding it, or another juror changing the date on a file. Your defense would likely hire an expert who would examine the computer and say "there was no child porn downloaded onto it." The prosecution might show pictures of .JPGs on your computer, and the defense might show a list of files with dates on them. Those summaries ARE available to the jury.
Provided your defense had an opportunity to rebut that - absolutely. That's how trials work.
And again, this is to your advantage. Let's say a curious juror was looking in your browser cache and found material that was downloaded as part of a Nordstrom's ad on Facebook. It showed a pre-teen wearing a bikini. "Why is this perv going out of his way to download bikini pictures of pre-teens? GUILTY!"
If, instead, that is brought up in court, your defense will put that expert on the stand and ask him if it is normal that such material is downloaded by a browser with no input from you, and with no intent on your part to see such material.
That almost never happens. It has never happened on any trial I've been on, from civil suits to a murder one grand jury. We didn't see the bloody knife; we just got a coroner's report that described the wounds from the knife, and got the police report on the knife they recovered.
Sometimes they do. In a case like this, though, it would almost certainly be a second jury.
Trump voiced this defense on a FOX News interview. When asked about the Iran classified document, he replied:
"There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else, talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or it may not, but that was not a document. These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things; golf shirts, pants, shoes, all sorts of things.”
So there were no documents; only papers. And yes they talked about Iran, but they also talked about other things. And maybe he held it up to show it to someone, but maybe not, and it was a paper anyway, not a document. And yes, he had them in boxes, but there were pants and shirts covering them so they were safe.
And, of course, all this is admissible in court.
"There was no document. That was a massive amount of papers and everything else, talking about Iran and other things. And it may have been held up or it may not, but that was not a document. These boxes were interspersed with all sorts of things; golf shirts, pants, shoes, all sorts of things.”
So there were no documents; only papers. And yes they talked about Iran, but they also talked about other things. And maybe he held it up to show it to someone, but maybe not, and it was a paper anyway, not a document. And yes, he had them in boxes, but there were pants and shirts covering them so they were safe.
And, of course, all this is admissible in court.
It's not. It's actually something you've seen before. What Sculptor is suggesting is a pathway to defend Trump, and it has nothing to do with how the law or courts work. As a matter of equal protection, this pathway exists in extraordinary territory, which is why it is not in effect.
In American jurisprudence, for instance, there need not be an underlying crime in order for a witness to obstruct justice. Similarly, as Sarkus has observed, it should be sufficient that the files were classified, or contain national defense information. The question of whether a document is properly classified does not affect the question of whether it was handled properly.
It's not exactly an uncommon maneuver, but, rather, just being played out at scale. The idea that one does not like a given fact, such as this or that sentence being classified, does not change the facts of how that document was handled.
People will need to remember that whatever it takes to defend Donald Trump is, in its way, what every American deserves. That's why if Trump needs special rules to protect him, like Sculptor suggests, then everyone should get them—i.e., those rules should not be special. Imagine how many people get out of prison, and how many convictions need to be expunged, if we decide to overturn our entire jurisprudence for this one guy.
But that's also not exactly an uncommon question; it's just playing out at extraordinary scale.
I was under the impression that in all federal cases it was the judge that determined sentence, and really only in capital cases is a jury involved, where they determine whether the death penalty should apply. Is Florida an exception to this, where they have jury sentencing for federal cases (he is being tried in Florida, right?)?
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/...education_network/how_courts_work/sentencing/
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Noooo. I want him to live a long, miserable life in jail.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
No.
Even tho hes not in jail i emagine his life has been quite miserable for some time now... an his future ant lookin all that bright ether... so no need to wish him ill to satisfy you'r thrill
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
What awesome logic.
"Don't punish me for defrauding my people and betraying my country; I already feel bad. Isn't that enough?"
I wish justice to be served, and punishment be meted out, for his crimes, to know that the Rule of Law is upheld and accountability keeps crooks in line.no need to wish him ill to satisfy you'r thrill
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
crimes???!!!
jees dad
Would you make misplacing a few pieces of paper a capital offense?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I think you're spoofing us here. You know perfectly well "a few pieces of paper" is an egregious trivialization of the truth.
But for the benefit of the interested reader: just one piece of paper is enough to contain the secret locations of hundreds of undercover operatives, the secret locations of nuclear weapons, the mission orders of an aircraft carrier and its fleet in foreign waters, etc.
So yeah.
Pont is… even if Trump dont get locked up… at least its likely that hes alredy miserable an likely to be so for quite a while… which should help to satisfy you'r desire for punishment
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
... hes alredy miserable an likely to be so for quite a while… which should help to satisfy you'r desire for punishment
Seriously, is that how it works where you're from?
"Your honour: Did the accused murder the plaintiff's entire family? Yes. Did he eat their brains with some Fava Beans and a nice Chianti? Yes. But does he feel bad about it? Yes. And shouldn't that be justice enough for the plaintiff and his dead family?"
His Right Honorable Cluelesshusband: "Ah. Well, the plaintiff feels bad. Case dismissed!"
Last edited:
Nah... we just let our hate build until we are consoumed by it an then wish we coud afford a psychiatrist