• meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        6 months ago

        Because his remarks will be “leaked” and it will be full of horrendous and inflammatory shit and probably not even be legal (I’m pretty sure there’s limits on what can be said in closing statements.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          32
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          from nolo:

          In practice, judges give attorneys great freedom at closing, as long as the argument has some relation to the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, judges must carefully craft any restrictions on closing so that they don’t deny the defendant the opportunity to discuss important considerations for the jury.

          Nonetheless, there are limits to proper closing argument. When attorneys overstep them, usually a judge will simply tell the jury to disregard the improper argument. But when attorneys commit serious misconduct during closing, a judge might declare a mistrial, and if not, a court of appeal might overturn any conviction.

          Arguments must be based on evidence. Most importantly, the conclusions that an attorney urges a jury to draw must be based on the evidence. Counsel cannot use the closing argument as an opportunity to refer to evidence that wasn’t part of the trial. For example, an attorney can’t argue that no similar crimes have been committed in the location in question since the defendant’s arrest without having presented evidence to that effect.

          Arguments cannot be irrelevant, confusing, or prejudicial. Judges can also prohibit or exclude arguments that are unrelated to the case, confusing, or inflammatory. For example, name-calling is generally forbidden. And asking the jury to “send a message” to other criminals by finding the defendant guilty may be improper since the focus is only whether the particular defendant on trial committed a crime. (State v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (2013).)

          *emphasis mine.
          **lots of emphasis on that last emphasis. you know why.

          • MNByChoice@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            I don’t think this trail has a jury and is purely to set damages.

            I say this is it is important to the implications.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The judge basically is the jury. Well, that’s an oversimplification.

              There’s still limitations on it, and all that really means is that the people/person making the decision are going to be far less tolerant of name calling and threats,

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              in as far as there’s limitations… sure.

              I expect if he does do his own closing argument and he goes into making-threats-territory, or something, he’s just gonna get muzzled.

              I wonder if judges can order actual, literal ball gags for defendants who just won’t shut up?

              • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I saw a video of a judge that had to send the defendant into another courtroom, then they let him watch on TV and they would turn his mic on to answer questions and then just turn it off when he went a ramblin’.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I mean, that’s effective… but imagine the memes of Trump in a ball gag… (on second thought, don’t…I regret everything.)

                  Actually, that’d be a good set up for debates. put them in sound proof boxes so neither candidate can interfere if the mic is ‘Off’. The other thing is, the mic gets sent to two channels, one of which is used to give subtitles, so we can still see the crazy.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 months ago

      If his lawyers were competent, they’d be telling him to STFU. Fortunately, no competent lawyer will represent him.

        • eestileib@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          He laid $3M up front to a very good lawyer in Georgia.

          Who urged him to look for a plea deal.

          And got benched, and is now chilling doing sweet fuck all and waiting out his retainer.

  • ApeNo1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    6 months ago

    The judge after Trump has finished speaking.

    “What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

  • LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    6 months ago

    Will that be before he releases his glorious healthcare plan and immigration deal or after? Because those have been coming in at any moment now.

  • donuts@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’ll believe it when I see it.

    He loves to do this little act where he puffs up his chest and claims that he’s going to testify, only to back down at the last minute.

      • Szymon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        6 months ago

        Maybe his plan is to be held in contempt so he becomes a martyr and proves to his idiots that he’s being silenced (though everyone else sees that he’s simply not following the rules).

  • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    No, he doesn’t. He always backs out at the last minute. I’ll bet a tooth he doesn’t even show up for closing arguments.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    6 months ago

    I’m the victim of a very unfair trial and very unfair judge. A judge who I think probably has magnets, if there’s one thing I know it’s magnets and you put water on it - no more magnets. No but - it’s true, Mexico is sending over killer magnets that hate Christians, it’s so terrible, folks, the biased prosecution doesn’t - I don’t have to because of president. See, they don’t want you to know that - it’s true that many people are saying I’m the smartest fraud who ever shat himself, but I think - if you want America back, you need to buy my steaks.

    Amen.

  • tegs_terry@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    6 months ago

    Please do, you mush-mouthed cock. Open up your rancid maw and get that cuban heeled foot in there nice and deep.

  • Kowowow
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s all fun and games till he tries to pull a hitler and use his time in court in insite violence or another more dangerous insurrection

    • Riskable@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      If he’s going to “pull a Hitler” he should skip all the nonsense and move straight to the final act.

      • JdW@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Pulling a Hitler would actually entail a conviction for a failed coup and years in prison before the grab for power… And a shitty political book written in prison.

        He’s even failing in emulating Hitler the right way.

      • Kowowow
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I wouldn’t mind but we would never hear the end of it

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It was the false flag WHO cultural Marxist deep state WEF globalist elite Antifa BLM trans MSM Hollywood!

  • TechAnon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Any legal experts in here? Can this be used as testimony for the judge/jury?