On Trump wanting to deliver part of his closing argument
by ACross (2024-01-09 17:44:45)
Cannot Reply Return to Political

In the New York state court case - is there any rule in NY that would allow this? Giving him the right to spew gibberish while not under oath seems like the dumbest idea I have ever heard.

Any New Yor lawyers with any insight?

Apparently won't happen
by ufl  (2024-01-10 13:37:05)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Conditions not agreed to
Shocking
by manofdillon  (2024-01-10 13:49:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Trump wouldn't agree to give a closing argument along the same ground rules that apply to everyone else (i.e., arguments relevant to the issues to be decided in the case based on evidence admitted during trial).

If the party is his company and not him personally,
by ndnjlaw  (2024-01-10 12:40:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I do not believe he can argue the case.

I think you're right. I always thought a corporation, LLC,
by Burvey  (2024-01-10 15:25:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

etc. had to be represented in court by an attorney.

Correct. An individual can represent himself or herself....
by Marine Domer  (2024-01-10 15:55:17)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

but not a corp. A corp, or for that matter even someone else's estate, is a separate legal entity. It is considered practicing law without a license for anyone who is not an attorney to represent anyone or any entity other than themselves.
No idea but don’t see how a represented party can do
by Barrister  (2024-01-09 20:28:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

that in a civil case.

This just a way to use the judge’s denial to rile up his nitwit followers?
Why couldn't he, though? He would be entitled to....
by Marine Domer  (2024-01-10 10:25:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

represent himself (talk about having a fool for a client), and would be permitted to give his own closing. And I've certainly seen cases where counsel for plaintiff have had one attorney do the primary close and the other do the rebuttal.

But I think the judge would have to let him fire his
by Barrister  (2024-01-10 10:30:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

lawyers first, and I don't see that happening. There's a difference between splitting closing argument between two lawyers and having a represented defendant be allowed to argue to the jury while not under oath (and having not testified under oath during the trial).

Perhaps, but the court could also just instruct the jury....
by Marine Domer  (2024-01-10 10:50:22)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

much to the frustration of Trump, that what he says in closing argument is not evidence, and admonish him not to address any issues and evidence not presented during the trial (as he/she would with counsel who argued something not in evidence). But the Court can and should refuse it in this situation just because the court has the right to control the proceedings and prevent a circus. I just don't think there is anything that would legally bar the court from allowing it.

Looks like the judge is letting him do it. I forgot this was
by Barrister  (2024-01-10 11:32:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

a bench trial, which means there's no danger of confusing or misleading the jury.

This removes a (bullshit) appeal point, and I cannot imagine anything Trump says will actually help his cause.
I doubt this is intended to sway the judge.
by IAND75  (2024-01-10 11:35:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

It is for his base.

My guess is he really wants to speak.
by NDBass  (2024-01-09 21:28:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Say just about whatever he wants to rile up his followers and then get the luxury of the judge likely telling him to stop saying some things or whatnot to add fuel to the fire. Either way, it'll be used as chum for them.
Actually, your subject line was probably sufficient *
by ufl  (2024-01-10 07:16:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

I have never heard of a civil defendant
by ACross  (2024-01-09 22:49:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

Represented by counsel provided any part of a closing statement.

He can testify (and opted not to do so in the presentation of his defense) but in doing so he would be under oath and subject to cross examination.

His lawyers know this.

I've seen it once -- in a prisoner case where he was
by Milhouse  (2024-01-10 11:23:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

represented by court-appointed lawyers after surviving summary judgment. It was a bench trial. His speech didn't help his case and he did not prevail.

My non-NY, non-lawyerly response...
by Kbyrnes  (2024-01-09 19:38:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Cannot reply

...Hey, DJT, see "Chessman, Caryl."