Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Sixth Amendment’

Trump’s Jury Trial Will Be As ‘Fair’ As The Russia Hoax And 2020 Election


BY: BRIANNA LYMAN | APRIL 19, 2024

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2024/04/19/trumps-jury-trial-will-be-as-fair-as-the-russia-hoax-and-2020-election/

Former President Donald Trump

Author Brianna Lyman profile

BRIANNA LYMAN

VISIT ON TWITTER@BRIANNALYMAN2

MORE ARTICLES

Jury selection for 12 jurors wrapped up Thursday in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s lawfare against former President Donald Trump, with the next phase of the trial expected to begin as early as Monday. But with two selected jurors booted for potential bias and perjury and at least one juror who made clear she doesn’t like Trump’s “persona,” can he really get a fair trial?

Who Are the Jurors?

After two of the initial seven selected jurors were struck from the panel, another seven were chosen Thursday. The jurors will hear Bragg’s claim that Trump broke the law by allegedly classifying payments made by his then-lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pornographer Stormy Daniels as part of a nondisclosure agreement as “legal fees” instead of campaign expenditures. Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York declined to charge Trump in 2018.

The final selection of jurors is as follows:

  • A salesman originally from Ireland who follows MSNBC, The New York Times, the Daily Mail, and Fox News. This juror is reportedly set to serve as the case’s foreman, according to ABC News.
  • A corporate lawyer from Oregon who reads the NYT, Google News, and the Wall Street Journal. The juror “suggested that he could infer the former president’s intent without ‘reading his mind,’” according to ABC News.
  • A man who works in finance and follows Michael Cohen — a convicted liar and the prosecution’s star witness — on social media. The juror also said he believes Trump did some good for the nation, The New York Times reported.
  • A lawyer who told the court he has “political views as to the Trump presidency” in that he agrees with some policies but disagrees with others, according to The Times.
  • A product development manager who said she did not like Trump’s “persona,” according to ABC News.
  • A female health care worker who enjoys faith-based podcasts.
  • A woman who “works in an educational setting” and acknowledged that because Trump “was our president, everyone knows who he is,” according to The Times.
  • A businessman who likes to listen to podcasts on behavioral psychology.
  • A retired wealth manager who claims he has no opinions that would hinder his ability to be impartial.
  • An engineer who said, “No, not really,” when asked if he has strong feelings about Trump, according to the NYT.
  • An English teacher from Harlem who appreciated Trump speaking “his mind,” according to ABC News.
  • A female who works in technology and relies on the NYT, Google, Facebook and TikTok for news. According to the NYT, “she said she probably has different beliefs than Mr. Trump, but that ‘this is a free country.’”

Two jurors were struck Thursday, one who admitted her inability to be impartial and another who had a possible history of vandalizing conservative political posters. One female juror told the court “outside influences” could impact her decision-making and expressed concerns about her identity becoming public, according to the Associated Press (AP).

“Yesterday alone I had friends, colleagues and family push things to my phone regarding questioning my identity as a juror,” the woman reportedly said. “I don’t believe at this point that I can be fair and unbiased and let the outside influences not affect my decision making in the courtroom.”

A second juror was dismissed after the prosecution argued he may have been dishonest about his past when he claimed he had never been arrested. “Prosecutors said they found an article about a person with the same name who had been arrested in the 1990s for tearing down posters pertaining to the political right in suburban Westchester County,” the AP reported.

Will These Jurors Deliver a ‘Common Sense Judgment’?

The Supreme Court held in the 1975 case Taylor v. Louisiana that “The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power — to make available the common sense judgment of the community as a hedge against the overzealous or mistaken prosecutor … or biased response of a judge.”

The Sixth Amendment is designed to protect the accused from any arbitrary and capricious trials perpetrated by a weaponized government. A jury of the accused’s peers is meant to check the power of the government, a right created in response to the British courts’ habit of permitting judges to compel juries to change their verdict if the outcome was not favored by the judge.

But from what we know of the Manhattan jury pool, it’s not clear these New Yorkers will be willing to check the government on a case that experts on both sides of the aisle have called “dubious.” New York County, which encompasses Manhattan, voted for Joe Biden over Trump 87 percent to 12 percent in 2020.

Trump’s lawyer objected to one potential juror who posted a video of a crowd of people celebrating Biden’s 2020 victory. Judge Juan Merchan decided to chastise Trump instead and refused to strike the potential juror for cause.

Another potential juror who was excused because of a job conflict told reporters outside of the courthouse that while she believes it is important for Trump to get a fair trial, she did not “approve of what he did as president.“

Meanwhile of the dozen jurors selected, a number said they get their news from corporate media like The New York Times — one of the outlets that spent years disparaging Trump and spreading false information about him.

Three NYT reporters won Pulitzer Prizes for their “reporting” on the Russia-collusion hoax, which they based on anonymous sources. But FBI official Peter Strzok, who ran the investigation into the alleged collusion, privately acknowledged the report was filled with “misleading and inaccurate” information, as pointed out by The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway.

Other jurors cited Google as a news source. Google “interfered” in elections at least 41 times over the past 16 years to harm candidates “who threatened [Google’s] left-wing candidate of choice,” a study from the Media Research Center found. In 2020, corporate media and Big Tech suppressed a bombshell report about the Biden family’s corrupt foreign business dealings mere weeks before the presidential election, adding to a pattern of burying negative press about Trump’s opponent while spreading lies about Trump.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist.

Category:

Law, Political

Tagged with:

If Alleged DOJ Misconduct Is True, A Judge Could Dismiss The Whole Case Against Trump


BY: WILL SCHARF | JULY 05, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/05/if-alleged-doj-misconduct-is-true-a-district-judge-could-dismiss-the-whole-case-against-trump/

Merrick Garland press conference
The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant. If proven true, the judge would be well within her rights to consider dismissal.

Author Will Scharf profile

WILL SCHARF

MORE ARTICLES

Lost in the breathless headlines over the indictment of President Trump for alleged violations of the Espionage Act is a story that deserves much more attention than it has received thus far: the allegation that a senior official at the Department of Justice attempted to shake down Trump’s co-defendant’s lawyer. It is a scandal in the making that could result in the investigation of senior DOJ officials, which should lead to public congressional hearings, and that might even result in the entire case against Trump being dismissed. 

Trump’s co-defendant is Waltine “Walt” Nauta, a Navy valet who served in Trump’s White House and who remained a personal aide to Trump after he left office. Several weeks ago, Nauta’s lawyer, a distinguished, highly-regarded Washington attorney named Stanley Woodward, leveled accusations against senior members of the Department of Justice, including DOJ Counterintelligence Chief Jay Bratt, who is now a part of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors. According to news reports, Woodward claimed in a sealed letter to D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg that, in a meeting to discuss Nauta’s case, Bratt indicated that Woodward’s application to be a D.C. Superior Court judge could be impacted if he could not get Nauta to testify against Trump.

If true, and I see no reason why Woodward would make such a threat up — and especially no reason why Woodward would risk his career by making such a representation to a federal judge — Bratt’s alleged misconduct could result in heavy sanctions, and is a potential ground for dismissal of the entire case against Nauta and Trump. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt could even face criminal prosecution himself.

In cases of flagrant prosecutorial misconduct, courts have the discretion to dismiss indictments altogether. If Woodward’s claims are proven, U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon would be well within her rights to consider a dismissal here. The conduct claimed is perhaps unprecedented and certainly flagrant, amounting to nothing less than an effort by a high-ranking DOJ official to deprive a defendant of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel through inappropriate and potentially unlawful acts. 

At the very least, Trump and Nauta deserve answers. Courts routinely allow discovery by the defense in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct — including depositions and requests for documents and communications — in order to determine the scope, breadth, and effects of any misconduct that occurred. The defense team in this case should seek testimony from Bratt to get to the bottom of what he said and why. 

As importantly, defense counsel should also seek to subpoena any communications between Bratt and others in DOJ and the White House relating to Woodward’s judgeship application and Bratt’s approach to Woodward more generally. My assumption is that these communications will be eye-opening, and may reveal even more misconduct on the part of the DOJ, the special counsel’s team, and their political masters.

The legal teams defending Trump and Nauta surely know all of this, and I am confident that they will pursue this and other lines of defense aggressively. But the American people also deserve to know the full details of misconduct by senior officials at the Department of Justice. Republicans in Congress should demand answers publicly and aggressively. The House Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction to investigate matters relating to the administration of justice in the federal court system. It has the power to subpoena Bratt, the other lawyers involved in the Trump prosecution, and senior Biden administration officials to get to the bottom of this.

Make no mistake, this is a huge deal. Bratt’s conduct may even fall within the ambit of federal criminal statutes. Depending on what exactly was said, Bratt’s conduct could constitute attempted witness tampering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1), attempted federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(3), attempted extortion by a federal official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 872, or attempted subornation of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1622. 

If the Department of Justice is truly committed to the open and transparent treatment of this case, a special counsel should be empowered to investigate Bratt’s actions and any other alleged misconduct by Jack Smith’s team.

Note: This piece has been updated.

Will Scharf is a former federal prosecutor, who also worked on the confirmations of Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. He is currently a Republican candidate for Missouri Attorney General.

Category:

Law

Tagged with:

Gun Control Laws: Judge, Jury and Executioner of Rights?


By / 31 May 2013 /http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/2013/05/gun-control-laws-judge-jury-and-executioner-of-rights/

executionerIn reading the article The Fat Lady Hasn’t Sung: Gun Debate Not Over, I was again struck by the idea of our judicial system being at risk via the gun control issue. What I am about to write will cause some consternation, but read it through to the end and then argue with me.

The article states:

“A host of logistical problems – including concerns about violating privacy, misunderstandings about which records should be submitted and a lack of money and training – has prevented federal and state agencies from submitting millions of mental health and drug abuse records to the database that’s used for background checks.”

In the U.S. Constitution is the Second Amendment that we are all familiar with. What we sometimes forget to associate with that is, within that Bill of Rights is the following:

“Amendment V”

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. [my bolding]“

and

“Amendment VI

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. [my bolding]“

The current process of our way of denying someone their Second Amendment rights is in conflict with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. In the current system, anyone who has had mental problems of whatever sort has their problem reported to the federal government behind the person’s back, and they have no recourse but to immediately lose their right to bear arms.

Forget the whole idea of it being unconstitutional to testify against oneself — for is that not what mental counseling amounts to? — of the Fifth Amendment. Forget, also, finding any witnesses in your favor, the decision is made without that process and if you wish to appeal it, you may, but it will take a lot of work on your part, and possibly a lot of money as well. Attorneys don’t come cheap.

This affects the third part of the Fifth Amendment that is bolded: the right to “life, liberty, or property without due process of the law”. Liberty and property both include the right to keep and bear arms, do they not?

The Sixth Amendment is trashed by our current gun control laws (A.K.A. people control laws) via the fact that there is no witness against you to confront once you have sought mental help. Ever been diagnosed as ADHD? That’s a mental illness.

You lose your right to a firearm. Where is your witness against you? ‘Tis you. Fifth Amendment: allegedly it prevents you from testifying against yourself, but in talking to a mental health professional, you are testifying against yourself! And it is used against you!

Where is your right to bring a witness in your favor? Shall the psychiatrist who reported you testify for you? Don’t count on that, the psychiatrist is the one who turned you in.

That leads us to the last portion of the Sixth Amendment: the right to “have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]“. When was the last time you heard of anyone being offered a public defender in order to help them get their Second Amendment rights returned to them after they were denied the right to buy a firearm? Has it ever happened? Our Sixth Amendment says that it is supposed to be available. After all, this is happening in a court of law, is it not?

When the law is written in such a way that the law itself becomes our judge, jury and the executioner of our GOD-given rights (for such they are according to our Founding Fathers), then there is a problem with the way the law is written. Gun purchasing laws, as currently constructed, say basically, “IF A, then B and C.” “A” being the mental history, and “B” being your psychiatrist turning you in, and “C” being the loss of your Second Amendment rights.

The law itself has found you guilty of having a mental problem, has therefore removed your Second Amendment right, and you cannot now legally own a gun and are left defenseless in your own home. You cannot defend your life, nor the lives of your wife (or hubby) and children with a gun. You have committed the ultimate sin: you have broken the law of an untarnished mind.

In a nation of  305,528,358 (2008′s number to match the mental health stat) in 2008 approximately 8% of the population who were considered “severely mentally ill”. In 2011 the population was approximately 310,500,000; and 14,612 murders were committed; only 1,000 (6.843%)  committed by those “with untreated severe mental illness“.  That leaves 93.157% of the murders in America committed by those without mental illness.

For the rights of the many to be protected, we must start with the rights of the few. If one person is denied their Fifth Amendment right in a court of law and is forced to testify against himself is that not a declination of the rights of all of us? If they can do it one, they can do it to many.

In America, our justice system is based upon the idea of “Innocent until proven guilty”, apparently we need to add, “Unless you’ve had a mental health issue.”

In Part II of my article, I shall cover some new information from the world of psychiatry and the implications for those affected by the “mental illness” rules of gun control laws.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud