No. of Recommendations: 8
At some point next week, the judge in Trump's hush money / election / business records fraud criminal trial is expected to provide directions to the jury and send them off to come up with a verdict. Ignoring for a moment any concept of what is ultimately "truth" in the case and what "justice" should look like, it's somewhat disconcerting to consider the situation from Trump's selfish perspective. (The only perspective that matters in his mind...).
This IS a criminal case. In criminal prosecutions, there is normally the opportunity for prosecutor and defendant to "haggle" somewhat at any point during the entire case, from indictment to waiting for the jury to come back. Haggling might typically involve a plea bargain to swap a guilty plea for fewer or lesser charges. The prosecutor typically goes for such deals to ENSURE the defendant incurs some penalty. A plea might be attractive if there are facts in the case not well established or if the theory of the is viewed as edgy or complicated to explain to a jury. The defendant typically goes for such deals at a point when they can guage how good the case against them is and have some capability of rational thought and minimizing their own future loss of freedom.
Trump's criminal trial is a unique case for several reasons. First, per analysis from Andrew Weissman, prosecutors have no lesser misdemeanor charges they can offer to bargain down to on their own. In New York State, the statute of limitations for misdemeanor charges that might be related to these crimes is only two years so it has expired. The statute of limitations on criminal charges is much longer (hence the current trial). While a PROSECUTOR cannot ignore the statute of limitations in HIS/HER bargaining, a DEFENDANT does have the right to waive their right to NOT be charged with misdemeanors beyond their statute of limitations. Trump and team could approach the prosecution with an offer to plead guilty to some lesser charges that might be misdemeanors.
But that's where the second unique aspect of this trial comes into play. Trump is obviously not any normal defendant. Prior testimony within the trial has already proven he is psychologically unwilling to stipulate any facts of the case, including the reality of the original tryst with Daniels. The reasons are not clear, other than that Trump is completely disconnected from reality. Melania doesn't care as long as the monthly lifestyle checks clear. His children don't care. His political supporters don't care. Leaders of the Republican Party don't care. Leaders of supposedly evangelical "Christian" churches don't care.
The sole thread of continuity in all of Trump's legal strategies regarding all of these cases focuses on DELAYING them to the point where they are still pending if he manages to pull off an election win, at which point he waits from November to January 20, 2025 then instructs the prosecutions to be terminated and fires anyone who attempts to ignore him.
So what avenues are still available for a criminal defendant and his legal team to pursue in a criminal case about to go to the jury? About the only avenue left involves the content of the defense's final argument. A final argument is the opportunity for both the prosecuution and defense to each lay out the story arc of their suggested relationship between all of the CHARGES presented, the FACTS presented during testimony and the INTERPRETATION of the applicable laws to justify a conviction or to establish reasonable doubt. The ONE THING that CANNOT be attempted during final arguments is the introduction of new evidence.
Could it be that Trump and his lawyers attempt to sabotage the trial and trigger the declaration of a mistrial through the content of their final defense argument in front of the jury? Could Todd Blanche intentionally say something so out of line that the judge would be required to declare a mistrial? Or something so on the fence of legal propriety or professionalism that it triggers a claim by the defense that the judge must be tossed, triggering a mistrial, delay and re-trial?
Again, at this point, neither Trump nor his defense team care about reality or professional ethics, they only seek delay. With THIS defendant and THIS legal team, I cannot put that idea out of my head.
WTH
