Quote:

---

Donald Trump faces a Sandoval hearing this afternoon, opening the door for the former president to testify at his criminal trial as his defense team gauges the risk of letting him take the stand.
A Sandoval hearing involves an examination of the defendant's criminal history. It is required under New York law when a defendant plans to testify in their own trial and is meant as an indicator of whether it would be a good idea for them to take the stand.
During the proceedings, both sides will discuss what prosecutors would be allowed to ask Trump on cross-examination. It's not yet clear whether the former president will testify.

Quote:

---

"You've heard many experts say this is not a good idea," CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid said Friday afternoon. "But this is something (Trump) clearly wants to do, and his team believes he can do this successfully, but they want to see how the trial goes."

---

The hearing is set to begin at 3:15 p.m. ET.

---

Quote:

---

A New York appeals court is hearing arguments Friday afternoon over Donald Trump's motion to change venue, according to two sources.

Last week, Trump had asked the appeals court to stop the trial so they could argue over a change of venue saying he couldn't get a fair trial in Manhattan.

An appellate judge denied the motion. The full panel is hearing Trump's challenge over a change of venue.

The hearing comes an hour after jury selection was completed in the criminal trial. A panel of 12 jurors and six alternates were seated Friday afternoon. Jury selection began on Monday.

---

In reply to Mondemonium

Mondemonium said:

---

Is this a violation of the gag order?

Meiselas: What I’m hearing from credible sources is that Donald Trump is actually farting in the courtroom… I’m hearing it from actual credible people that as he’s kind of falling asleep, he’s actually passing gas and that his lawyers are really struggling with the smell. pic.twitter.com/wa6F3iRDgX

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 19, 2024

---

NO, But it is OBVIOUS an attempt by Trump to threaten the judge and jurors since his toxic fart could have been ignited by the self-immolating protester outdoors. In fact, it is almost a certainty that Trump and thr protester are in cahoots.

Quote:

---

Prosecutors are in the courtroom. Former President Donald Trump also walked in with his attorneys and took his seat.

Trump is now chatting with his attorney Todd Blanche, who is seated to his left, before the judge enters.

---

Quote:

---

The court is back in session after taking a lunch break.
The judge is expected to hold a Sandoval hearing this afternoon, a routine hearing that will address Donald Trump's criminal history and assess how much prosecutors can ask if a defendant testifies.
Jury selection ended before the lunch break. A panel of 12 jurors and six alternates were seated Friday afternoon. Jury selection began on Monday.

---

Aaand it begins.

Quote:

---

Emil Bove, a member of Donald Trump's legal team, says that Trump's attorneys do not object to redacting personal identifying information from Michael Cohen's cell phones, which includes Cohen's contacts. But they object to the sealing of the entire exhibits in a public trial.

Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger responds that redacting the documents would be "extremely, extremely burdensome," saying it would require combing through thousands and thousands of pages and thousands of Cohen's phone contacts.

Judge Juan Merchan then says he's not going to require prosecutors to redact 39,000 contacts, when they only seek to introduce what's relevant.

He says that prosecutors only want to use what's relevant, and if Trump's lawyers see something that's sealed that they want to use, he will look then.

---

Quote:

---

The judge is holding a Sandoval hearing, a routine hearing that will address Donald Trump's criminal history and assess how much prosecutors can ask if a defendant testifies.

The court is also reviewing a defense motion.

Trump attorney Emil Bove began by saying that the defense objects to each case that prosecutors want to raise.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said he won't allow a trial within a trial as a Sandoval hearing got underway in the Manhattan courthouse.

A Sandoval hearing is a routine process through which the court determines whether past wrongdoing can be brought up in the current trial. It will assess how much prosecutors can ask if a defendant testifies.

Merchan's remark came as Trump's attorneys argued over the specifics of a previous $355 million civil fraud judgment against the former president, and whether the prosecution can use it as part of the current proceedings.

---

Another rare display of common sense by Merchan. Then again, prosecutors should have better curated what they wanted to bring in and not throw everything including the kitchen sink at this.

Was wondering when this Biden lackey would make an appearance here.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said that as former Donald Trump chooses whether to testify during the trial, it's clear that witness credibility is at the "core" of it and that's an argument for allowing additional evidence, not excluding it.

Trump attorney Emil Bove then moved on to discussing the Trump Organization verdict, arguing that prosecutors in that case who are sitting to his right said that those charges were not about Trump. "This case is not about Donald Trump," Bove quoted prosecutor Susan Hoffinger as saying during that trial.

Judge Juan Merchan also presided over that trial, Colangelo says.

He says that prosecutors in that trial spoke "at length" about what Trump knew, countering the defense argument that a defendant in that case, Allen Weisselberg, had gone "rogue."
Remember: In December 2022, two Trump Organization companies were found guilty on multiple charges of criminal tax fraud and falsifying business records connected to a 15-year scheme to defraud tax authorities by failing to report and pay taxes on compensation for top executives.
Trump and his family were not charged in this case, but the former president was mentioned repeatedly during the trial by prosecutors about his connection to the benefits doled out to certain executives, including company-funded apartments, car leases and personal expenses.

---

Quote:

---

One of former President Donald Trump's attorneys, Emil Bove, accused prosecutors of "piling things on" and trying to confuse the jury about what's actually at issue in the hush money criminal trial.

The comment came during a back-and-forth over which elements of Trump's past legal issues can be brought up in the current proceedings part of a routine process called a Sandoval hearing.

Prosecutors want to bring up past cases including a $355 million civil fraud order and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case but the former president's legal team argues those issues aren't relevant to the case at hand.

---

Quote:

---

At a hastily scheduled New York appeals court hearing Friday afternoon, Donald Trump's attorney Cliff Robert called for an interim stay in the hush money trial and argued the venue should be changed from Manhattan.

Robert argued that seating a jury in three days with so many potential jurors being dismissed for cause over bias is "untenable."

He also cited a woman who was seated on the jury Tuesday and asked to be dismissed Thursday after she felt pressure from the media attention. Robert argued it showed how the publicity surrounding the case has made the trial unfair to Trump.

Steven Wu, the district attorney's appeals lawyer, said the record shows the opposite: that "Jury selection has worked."

He said there's been a "robust process" to ensure jurors can be fair and impartial. He also pointed to the juror questionnaire that Wu said is longer than typically used.

Judge Marsha Michael said she would issue a ruling shortly.

---

Not holding my breath on that.

Quote:

---

Donald Trump's attorneys are arguing in court right now against bringing in his past legal cases and battles during the hush money criminal trial.
The former president is reacting in court as prosecutors bring up the allegations against him. Here's a look at the cases:

• Judgment in $355 million civil fraud order: Trump attorney Emil Bove said the prosecution should not be allowed to use Judge Arthur Engoron's $355 civil fraud judgment against Trump. Bove also argued that Engoron's ruling was subject to a preponderance of evidence standard, which is a lower standard than a criminal case. He said the charges in the civil fraud case are similar to the current case, and that the jury "may infer if it happened before Justice Engoron" under a different evidentiary standard, then they could believe "that it also happened beyond a reasonable doubt in this case."
• October 2023 gag order: Bove also objected to Engoron's finding that Trump violated his gag order in October 2023, saying the team is concerned about introducing different standards of proof and confusing the jury. Trump was fined $10,000 after appearing to reference a court clerk in comments made outside the courtroom. Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said prosecutors can seek to impeach a witness' credibility not just through criminal acts but also through "any prior immoral, vicious, illegal, and bad act conduct," arguing that the violation of the gag order is relevant.
• E. Jean Carroll defamation case: Bove also argued against allowing prosecutors to question Trump about the Carroll defamation case, arguing that it requires consideration of events "we very much dispute" which date all the way back to the 1990s. Bove argued that to "bring up Ms. Carroll's allegation at this trial pushes the salaciousness onto another level." Judge Juan Merchan asked, "Why don't we not deal with the allegations then," and just consider the findings in the case. Bove said that still isn't acceptable. Colangelo argued that the Carroll trials deal with defamation from 2019 and 2022. "That's not remote," he said. Trump shook his head as Colangelo spoke about the former president defaming Carroll.

Bove also argued against including a lawsuit Trump filed against Hillary Clinton that was dismissed for being frivolous and in bad faith. Merchan questioned why that wouldn't be relevant for prosecutors to try to impeach Trump's credibility. "If that's not Sandoval, I don't know what is," Merchan says after reading some of the opinion criticizing Trump's frivolous lawsuit. Bove responds that there's a cascading effect of having multiple civil lawsuits that are still under appeal.

---

Actually, it's not but Merchan doesn't care.

Quote:

---

The Sandoval hearing has concluded.

Judge Juan Merchan says he will reserve his decision for now, but the lawyers will have it by Monday.

Merchan went on to discuss several exhibits Trump's lawyers are arguing should be precluded because of presidential immunity.

Attorneys are now raising other issues related to pre-motion letters. Prosecutors are arguing that the judge should reserve any judgment on evidentiary objections until trial.
Remember: A Sandoval hearing is a routine process that will determine what elements of Trump's past legal issues can be brought up as part of the current hush money criminal trial.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says that former President Donald Trump's lawyers appear to be re-arguing his ruling on what can and can't come in related to the infamous "Access Hollywood tape."
Merchan said on Monday that he would not allow the tape to be played to jurors but would allow prosecutors to refer to what was said on the tape.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche is arguing that an email being introduced with the text of what was said went beyond what Merchan's initial decision allowed for, which is why they asked for clarification.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says that this was already argued on Monday morning.

Merchan says he's going to go back and read the transcript Monday and see if anything he said is inconsistent with his prior rulings. He said his main concern with the tape was that the jury would "hear your client's voice," see his face and his mannerisms.

"My concern is that would be extremely prejudicial," he says.

---

Also has zero to do with this case, which is an accounting ledger case.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says that the defense cannot continue to keep filing pre-motion letters and motions to try to re-litigate decisions the judge has already made.

"That has to end. There comes a point where you accept my rulings," Merchan says.
"I've entertained your motions, I've entertained your arguments in good faith. At some point, you need to accept my motions," he says.

Donald Trump was glaring at Merchan as he was speaking to his attorneys.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump, asked whether he will testify in his hush money criminal trial, said "yes."
The former president was answering questions from reporters on his way out of the courtroom.

---

Quote:

---

A New York appeals court judge denied Donald Trump's motion for an interim stay pending a change of venue appeal of his criminal trial.
This was the latest attempt by the former president to stop the hush money trial right before opening statements, which are set to be heard on Monday.
Judge Marsha Michael gave five minutes for each side to argue their case at the hastily arranged hearing Friday afternoon.

---

Five minutes? Glad she gave it due consideration./sarc.

For the evening crowd the summary:

Quote:

---

The full jury panel has now been seated in the hush money trial against Donald Trump, clearing the way for opening statements to start on Monday.
There are 12 jurors and six alternates who will hear the case against the former president.
Opening statements are set to begin Monday at 9:30 a.m. ET. Court will be a half day on Monday and Tuesday due to Passover, ending at 2 p.m. ET each day.
Leaving the courthouse Friday, Trump again called the trial a "giant witch hunt." Just hours after jury selection finished, an appeals court denied Trump's latest attempt to stop the trial from going forward.
Here's what happened today:
Finishing jury selection:

• The remaining five alternates were sworn in on Friday. All 12 jurors and one alternate were selected Thursday.
• The day started with a group of 22 potential jurors answering a questionnaire and facing more questions from lawyers on both sides.
• Trump watched the alternates' answers very closely as they shared their opinions of him, turning toward the jury box as they responded.
• Before the lunch break, Judge Juan Merchan gave the jurors instructions not to discuss the case with others or research it. He said the court cannot start until all 18 jurors are present each day.

Sandoval hearing:

• The judge held a Sandoval hearing in the afternoon after the full jury was sworn in. The routine procedure aimed to address Trump's criminal history and assess how much prosecutors can ask about it if the defendant testifies.
• Prosecutors want to bring up past cases including a $355 million civil fraud order and the E. Jean Carroll defamation case but the former president's legal team argues those issues aren't relevant to the case at hand.
• The judge said lawyers will have his decision on that matter by Monday.
• It's not yet clear whether the former president will testify. But coming out of the courtroom, Trump said "yes" when asked whether he would take the stand.

Meantime: A New York appeals court judge denied Trump's motion for an interim stay pending a change of venue appeal. This was the latest attempt by the former president to stop the hush money trial before opening statements.
Outside the courtroom:

• A man lit himself on fire outside the courthouse, New York Police Chief of Department Jeffrey B. Maddrey said.
• The man walked into the park across the street from the courthouse, throwing flyers into the air, according to Maddrey. He then pulled a canister of what police believe to be an accelerant and lit himself on fire, he said.
• The man is in critical condition at Cornell Burn Unit.
• NYPD Chief of Detectives Joe Kenny said police have not determined if the incident was related to Trump's trial. He said the man did post about the incident on social media and that his internet presence will be part of the ongoing investigation.

---

Quote:

---

The full panel in Donald Trump's hush money trial has been set after five alternate jurors were selected Friday.
Remember: A full 12-person jury was seated earlier this week, along with one alternate juror.
Here's what we know about the alternate jurors selected Friday:
Alternate Juror #1

• A woman originally from Spain
• Not currently working
• Married with adult children
• Likes to travel
• Says she does not follow the news and does not have any social media accounts
• Says she doesn't "have strong opinions about former President Donald Trump that would interfere" with her ability to be a fair and impartial juror

Alternate Juror #3

• A native New Yorker
• He is a fan of martial arts

Alternate Juror #4

• A contract specialist who has previously lived in New Jersey and Oregon
• She is married with two children
• Says she likes to see live music and take her boys to basketball games
• Says she's "not a big news person" but looks at The New York Times, Reuters and the BBC
• Does have social media profiles but doesn't post or use them

Alternate Juror #5

• Works for a clothing company
• Married
• Says she gets her news from Google

Alternate Juror #6

• Project manager for a construction company
• She is divorced with three sons
• Her boyfriend is in law enforcement
• Says she listens to true crime podcasts
• Her father was convicted of a federal crime when she was in high school but she said she was shielded from the details

---

In reply to aggiehawg

Quote:

---

Actually, it's not but Merchan doesn't care.

---

Quoting myself bcause I anticipate a late night drive by about that.

So read this first before responding please. Only six pages but explains what a Sandoval hearing is about and the case law surrounding them.

LINK

Big if true! (Testifying part)

On his way out of court Trump is asked by media if he will testify and he answers: “Yes.”

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 19, 2024

In reply to Im Gipper I am not surprised. One Trump is Trump. He wants to tell his side always.

Two, he's been muzzled both inside and outside of court for the Carroll and the case before Engeron, when he had not taken the stand yet.

In reply to aggiehawg Yeah, he definitely wants to!

Will he? Time will tell. Most likely no.

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Big if true! (Testifying part)

On his way out of court Trump is asked by media if he will testify and he answers: “Yes.”

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) April 19, 2024

---

He's generally a terrible witness and this would be an especially terrible idea based on how we know New York has framed this case so far. For his sake he shouldn't. But I suppose we'll see how the trial plays out until then, and maybe that'll change.

Quote:

---

Steven Wu, the district attorney's appeals lawyer, said the record shows the opposite: that "Jury selection has worked."

He said there's been a "robust process" to ensure jurors can be fair and impartial. He also pointed to the juror questionnaire that Wu said is longer than typically used.

---

A robust process that already had to boot 3 seated jurors who lied about their ability to be impartial. Surely everyone else told the truth too

In reply to TXAggie2011

Quote:

---

He's generally a terrible witness and this would be an especially terrible idea based on how we know New York has framed this case so far. For his sake he shouldn't. But I suppose we'll see how the trial plays out until then, and maybe that'll change.

---

I tend to view these cases as if he were my client. (Nightmare) But this is a criminal trial unlike all of the rest that have civil trials thus far. Defense counsel, not even this corrupt judge, cannot stop that. Judge can threaten to do so because he's a state judge but he has to have a colloquy on record about the defendant testifying.

Although, I am unsure Merchan even knows what that is at this point. Awful judge.

In reply to C@LAg

C@LAg said:

---

Mondemonium said:

---

Is this a violation of the gag order?

Meiselas: What I’m hearing from credible sources is that Donald Trump is actually farting in the courtroom… I’m hearing it from actual credible people that as he’s kind of falling asleep, he’s actually passing gas and that his lawyers are really struggling with the smell. pic.twitter.com/wa6F3iRDgX

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 19, 2024

---

NO, But it is OBVIOUS an attempt by Trump to threaten the judge and jurors since his toxic fart could have been ignited by the self-immolating protester outdoors. In fact, it is almost a certainty that Trump and thr protester are in cahoots.

---

Odor in the court!!!

Quote:

---

Disgraced Stormy Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti has been in contact with former President Trump's legal defense team and is ready and willing to testify against his former client, he told The Post in an interview from jail.

"The defense has contacted me," Avenatti told The Post in a phone call from Terminal Island, a minimum-security federal prison in Los Angeles where he is currently serving a 19-year sentence for extortion, tax evasion, fraud, embezzlement and other federal crimes.

"I'd be more than happy to testify, I don't know that I will be called to testify, but I have been in touch with Trump's defense for the better part of year," Avenatti said.

---

Quote:

---

The ex-litigator refused to offer any details about the specifics of his conversations with Team Trump.

A person close to the former president confirmed the ongoing discussions.

---

LINK

Not sure it would be a good idea or a bad idea? I mean between Stormy, Cohen and Avenatti, who would you believe?

In reply to aggiejayrod

aggiejayrod said:

---

Quote:

---

Steven Wu, the district attorney's appeals lawyer, said the record shows the opposite: that "Jury selection has worked."

He said there's been a "robust process" to ensure jurors can be fair and impartial. He also pointed to the juror questionnaire that Wu said is longer than typically used.

---

A robust process that already had to boot 3 seated jurors who lied about their ability to be impartial. Surely everyone else told the truth too

---

Dude gets busted for tearing down political signs and says he doesn't remember it. I vividly remember the 3-4 run ins I had with police in my youth and I never had cuffs put on me.

****ing liar. Democrats gonna democrat.

In reply to Tony Franklins Other Shoe 100%.

In reply to aggiehawg Creepy Porn Lawyer fishing for a pardon in 2025?

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

Creepy Porn Lawyer fishing for a pardon in 2025?

---

Says he's not but who knows?

Like I asked before, would anyone believe the credibility between Stormy, Cohen or Avenatti?

Cohen's a slimy lawyer who illegally recorded his own clients, was in the taxi medallion fraud game, lies constantly. Stormy has kept changing her story over time...and well Avenatti is a convicted felon, Creepy Porn Lawyer.

In reply to aggiehawg It's like the crowd at the bar in Star Wars!

In reply to Im Gipper

Im Gipper said:

---

It's like the crowd at the bar in Star Wars!

---

The funny thing to me is that the prosecution tried very hard to innoculate the jury from Cohen's past. Not so much Stormy. But if that attempt to innoculate the jury towards Cohen defense can turn that around and ask the jury to apply that same non-standard for Avenatti?

I have been thinking about a prison based deposition of Avenatti being possibly introduced due to his unavailability being in a federal prison in California? Do it on a Wednesday since that is a non-court day? One of the prosecutors could attend. Hell, do a zoom appearance during trial?

Look at the news consumption of the jurors. They will know Avenatti since he was on MSNBC and CNN and featured in the NYT and WaPo during his reign as the next POTUS candidate.

Further, yeah Avenatti was caught and is in prison but compared to Cohen? That's six of one half a dozen on the other.

OTOH, Garland can guarantee an early release now if Avenatti double crosses the Trump legal team. That's Giglio material that must be disclosed but Merchan does not care about that and Trump's team know that.

Risky.

Rumor out there is that the first witness for the state will be David Pecker, formerly with the National Enquirer on that catch and capture theory of paying for exclusive rights but never running a story. IIRC, that involved Karen McDougal. She is also on the general witness list do she might also be on the stand tomorrow?

Late to this thread. What crime did Trump allegedly commit?

In reply to aggiehawg Worth noting, Pecker got immunity deal for cooperating

In reply to BMX Bandit

BMX Bandit said:

---

Worth noting, Pecker got immunity deal for cooperating

---

Immunity from which potential criminal charge(s)?

Quote:

---

Lawyers are called for jury duty like anyone else, but they rarely serve as jurors, and it's "totally uncommon" to see two or more lawyers on a single jury, said trial consultant Charli Morris.

But of the seven jurors selected for Trump's hush money trial so far, one is a civil litigator at a large white-shoe law firm, and another is a corporate lawyer at a firm focused on start-ups and venture capital. Five more jurors, plus about six alternates, will be selected in the coming days.

---

I have no doubt that corporate lawyer in that field is very familiar with confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements, probably non-compete contracts as well. They are used routinely when parties are looking for financing for their businesses.

The civil litigator is also familiar with NDAs as part of settlement agreements even for nuisance suits.

Quote:

---

Typically, prosecutors and defense lawyers alike try to keep lawyers off juries, fearing heightened scrutiny from members of their own profession. But in a Manhattan jury pool that is largely seen as unfavorable to the former president, Trump's legal team might see a silver lining in having lawyers on the jury.

---

LINK

I would love, love, love to be selected for a jury. Will never happen, of course. And I myself only allowed one lawyer on a federal antitrust trial we were defending. Such a complex case with antitrust issues and a short timeframe for trial (about 4 days as I recall).

There did come a point during the plaintiff's rebuttal which was disastrous for their case that the lawyer looked over at our counsel table and smiled and he was trying not to laugh out loud by putting his hand over his mouth and chin. Plaintiffs were dead in the water with that one awful witness.

In reply to Wabs

Wabs said:

---

Late to this thread. What crime did Trump allegedly commit?

---

I'm still not sure on this. Something about classifying the hush money payments as a legal expense, which then violates NY law because it was a falsification and cover up.

I'm not a lawyer, but hiring a lawyer to settle a claim against you sure sounds like a legal expense to me.

It's the like the rest of the Trump charges... they're on a fishing expedition trying to get something to stick.

And I'm no longer a Trump fan and wish he wasn't the R nominee, but I can still see a hit job plain as day.

One more observation... I served on a jury in Memphis where we unanimously acquitted the defendant in 15 minutes after we huddled for deliberations because it was clear there was insufficient evidence to convict him.

The judge gathered us as a group after the trial to explain that what we couldn't know during the trial -- the defendant was allegedly a bad guy with previous charges who always escaped conviction -- and the prosecutor knew this case was flimsy but decided to pursue it anyway trying to get something to stick.

It made sense to me at the time, but in light of the ongoing Trump saga, it's clear in hindsight those Shelby County prosecutors weren't any better than these scumbags in NY.

In reply to MemphisAg1

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Wabs said:

---

Late to this thread. What crime did Trump allegedly commit?

---

I'm still not sure on this. Something about classifying the hush money payments as a legal expense, which then violates NY law because it was a falsification and cover up.

I'm not a lawyer, but hiring a lawyer to settle a claim against you sure sounds like a legal expense to me.

It's the like the rest of the Trump charges... they're on a fishing expedition trying to get something to stick.

And I'm no longer a Trump fan and wish he wasn't the R nominee, but I can still see a hit job plain as day.

---

But the NY law is a misdemeanor meaning the statute of limitations has long since passed. It is the unknown crime that is supposedly federal (never charged) that raises the misdemeanor to a state felony charge with a longer statute of limitation to bring the case.

Still do not know for sure which federal crime Bragg thinks he has any authority to prosecute.

In reply to MemphisAg1

MemphisAg1 said:

---

One more observation... I served on a jury in Memphis where we unanimously acquitted the defendant in 15 minutes after we huddled for deliberations because it was clear there was insufficient evidence to convict him.

The judge gathered us as a group after the trial to explain that what we couldn't know during the trial -- the defendant was allegedly a bad guy with previous charges who always escaped conviction -- and the prosecutor knew this case was flimsy but decided to pursue it anyway trying to get something to stick.

It made sense to me at the time, but in light of the ongoing Trump saga, it's clear in hindsight those Shelby County prosecutors weren't any better than these scumbags in NY.

---

That is a hard call to make but the rules on propensity, prior bad acts and relevancy actually make sense from a substantive due process standpoint.

Case in point: Alex Murdaugh in South Carolina. Judge messed up the case by allowing days and days and days of testimony about Murdaugh taking client funds. Yeah, but he already was pleading guilty to those. Did he kill his wife and son? The DNA and forensic evidence did not show that he had killed either one.

But he was a bad guy anyway, so the jury convicted him.

There was a guy back in the 60s who was tried for murder. Long rap sheet. Was convicted and sentenced to die. His reaction was along the lines of, "I didn't kill this guy but I killed plenty of other guys, so guess I deserve it."

In reply to aggiehawg I hear you, and I get that. Kind of like how they got Al Capone, right? I think it was tax evasion or something like that, when everybody knew he was guilty as sin for organized crime.

I felt comfortable at the time with the Memphis case. The plaintiff gave testimony that exculpated the defendant, so we had no choice but to acquit.

Back to Trump... they're trying to get something to stick. What bothers me is it's not because he's a criminal that literally gets away with murder. Instead he's a rude, abrasive politician who says things they don't like. Prosecuting someone for hurt feelings is an abuse of the justice system.

In reply to aggiehawg

aggiehawg said:

---

Rumor out there is that the first witness for the state will be David Pecker, formerly with the National Enquirer on that catch and capture theory of paying for exclusive rights but never running a story. IIRC, that involved Karen McDougal. She is also on the general witness list do she might also be on the stand tomorrow?

---

Catch and Kill. Happens all the time, not a crime, AFAIK