The GEORGIA RICO TRIAL: Pretrial Decisions

I couldn't believe we didn't yet have a thread, dedicated to Trump & Co.'s Georgia trial. I guess I can understand, in that, for most, the main action won't start until next year. Nevertheless, there will be various motions, and issues decided before that time, on which I'd be surprised, if no one here had an opinion that they wished to express. Hence, this thread, posted on the opening day of the hearing over the first issue, of two of the indicted attorneys-- Sidney Powell, and Kenneth Chesebro.

I'd heard a little bit of the proceeding, on TV, in which the defendants seemed to have a reasonable argument. The little bit of pundit reaction, I've thus far heard, however, seems disposed towards thinking that they will fail to get this dividing of their cases. I have not even, yet, found a post-hearing article, so here is one from 15 hours ago, at The Hill, previewing the battle lines.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehil...ing-georgia-fulton-county-da/amp/?bshm=rime/2

<Snip>
Willis is hoping to keep the co-defendants together by trying them all on the same advanced timeline, but she faces stiff opposition.

McAfee on Wednesday will weigh whether to keep Willis’s goal alive or side with Chesebro and Powell, who have each made clear they want to be tried alone, largely because the acts they are accused of don’t overlap.

“Ms. Powell can receive a fair trial only if she is tried alone,” her attorney, Brian Rafferty, wrote in court filings. “The prejudice that would inure to her from a lengthy trial with any of those she was not involved and about the vast number of events she had no knowledge of or connection with would deny her Due Process.”
<End>


First off, I will admit that I am only guessing that we have two defendants in today's hearing, because they're the only ones of the five attorneys, whom I'd heard had filed for speedy trials-- which itself, will separate them from most of the others-- who'd also filed for separation of their cases. I don't know why the others did not follow suit, unless they were part of all of the different conspiracies which compose this entire case: the intimidation of the election worker, the fake electors, and the voting machine fraud, being the ones I heard mentioned today by defense lawyers, however I would be shocked if the Raffensperger phone call didn't make it in, as well. Another possibility for the absence of the others, however, is that they'd only requested speedy trials, thinking that DA Willis would not be ready soon enough to satisfy the state requirements, which would benefit them, perhaps even resulting in a dismissal of their charges (?). Yet another possibility, is that those other lawyers are, instead, petitioning to have their cases moved to Federal Court.

As should be obvious, I am not on top of every detail of these proceedings, myself, so will hope to have what news I can bring to the thread, augmented by (credible) contributions, from the rest of you. Whenever I am only speculating about something, as in the prior paragraph, I will make that clear.

Today's case, then, seems trying to decide only between whether these two will get their own trial, or be tried together. While, then-- assuming that proposition is correct-- neither will be forced to sit with a large group of other defendants, which it may be contended could be an unfair bias against them, by association, made by the jurors, still Willis would need lay out large portions of the different conspiracies, just to try these two.

Therefore, the contentions at today's hearing, were that Chesebro, who was only connected to the fake electors part of the conspiracy, has nothing at all to do with the voting machine scheme (in which it was hoped to gain access to the records of one precint-- which had even expressed, at one point, a willingness to help-- and then show significant errors in that result, thereby calling into question, all the other Georgia precincts' results). It was presented as that this would be a more technically dense, time-consuming thing to explain, and Chesebro might have his own trial harmed by juror confusion, or forgetting of details. While my snip makes clear that Powell's lawyer had made the corresponding claim, from that side, it wouldn't seem to me, that her objection would be as strong; that said, I did not hear her attorneys, at all.

Hoping that I am offering a sufficient explanation-- let the predictions, and the thread, begin!

 

A bit more information to add.

1) Who've asked for speedy trials, can rescind their requests, if they change their minds (yet the prosecution must be ready, just in case).

2) The window remains open for others, to still request "speedy trials." However, new requests, would not be on the same timeline, as current requests, which I think will be tried in October (which my OP source gives, as the one trial date scheduled, thus far). New requests, would get a December trial date.

3) An interesting complication that arise today-- possibly part of Willis's strategy? She was asked how long this trial would take, with all 19 defendants together, in one trial. Answer: 4 months, with 150 witnesses. Then asked, about trials of smaller groups-- and the same answer: 4 months, and 150 witnesses. Not only might the Court not want to have this same, massive case, presented multiple times, there are also considerations about making all the witnesses appear, over & over-- especially as these include those election workers, who'd been threatened and harassed. Will this work to Willis's advantage, in having trials of at least larger groups of the defendants? Will it work against Willis, if more defendants request speedy trials, so that she will only be halfway through the first group of October trials, as the December trials commence?

4) The rationale behind the need to present ALL of the evidence, even if most would not directly apply to defendant(s) in any given case, is that these defendants are not charged with individual acts, but with being part of the overall conspiracy. Therefore, the DA must prove "the conspiracy," in any of their trials. That is also the argument against the separating of any individual's case, such as Mark Meadows', due to some special considerations which might apply specifically to them.

 

As they say, "the devil is in the details".

I think this is a gross and corrupt misuse of power, and is attempting to blow something relatively small out of proportion.

In my opinion, this is not the sort of thing that should ever have justified criminal charges.
The "crime" is based on something Trump said in a conversation over the telephone while he was U.S. President, while he was not even physically in the U.S. state that is claiming extradition over him.

I actually don't approve of what Trump said, think it is wrong, and think it could constituted an "undue" influence, but nevertheless, to issue criminal charges in response to it is excessive and constitutes corruption.

I'm almost surprised Trump is not staying in Florida and fighting extradition, but perhaps he does not feel he will be able to seek reasonable justice in the federal court system under the Biden Administration, so he feels he has to comply with the courts in the state of Georgia.

 

Good thread. Interesting to observe today. Like the judge. Smart, calm, clear , etc.

We have plenty of legal drama coming in the next year...It will test the legal system in ways not tested before.

 

If this case were only about one phone call, it would not require four months, and 150 witnesses, in order to present it. I am not even completely sure the phone call is part of the case, as someone else here, on the Right, recently had a thread, leaking that Raffensperger had testified to the Special Grand Jury, that he had not felt he'd been being unduly pressured, but took it as a negotiation, of sorts. I'd replied to that thread, however, that this would not preclude others from viewing the call, as an attempt to induce the Sect'y of State, to commit voter fraud.

But no matter, there are numerous parts to the case, as mentioned-- the intimidation/threatening of election workers, the voting machine scheme (which never came off, but had been planned, and contacts made), and of course, the fake electors aspect of the case. Willis is presenting all of these, as more or less coordinated pieces of the same effort, to thwart the transfer of power to Joe Biden, as voting results had indicated, and instead keep Trump in power.

Main point: Federal Courts will try Trump, as well. Secondly, there is still the possibility, that this whole thing could get moved to Federal Court (though Willis would, of course, still be the one to prosecute it).

As to your comment about expecting that Trump might have hidden in Florida, & fought extradition: how could he have campaigned for President, which is his real plan, for beating his legal troubles? He could have been apprehended in any other state, and then extradited. Alternately, hiding just in Florida would make him look fearful & weak, and even if DeSantis had the state fight Trump's extradition, courts would have eventually forced it. It was a no-win move, to not surrender.

 

PUNCHING BACK TWICE AS HARD: New Rules Bite Left in the Backside.

“At long last, Republicans have begun to embrace the New Rules bestowed upon our society by the Marxist Left. Just yesterday, my colleague Chris Queen reported on Georgia’s Attorney General Chris Carr following the example recently set by Fulton County DA Fani Willis and wielding the state’s RICO laws. But unlike Willis’s acrobatic interpretation of the statutes to go after Orange Man Bad, Carr is using them to bust up the passel of actual domestic terrorists who have been terrorizing Atlanta over its plans to build a public safety training center.”

Indict them.
Convict them.
Incarcerate them.

 

A very dubious categorizing of protesters. Yes they became violent, after police shot and killed one of them.

<Google Snip>
On Jan. 18, Georgia State Patrol troopers shot Manuel "Tortugita" Teran while clearing an activist camp at the site of the future safety training center. After his death, a protest turned violent, and a police car was set on fire and protesters broke windows at several businesses. Five people were arrested that night.1 hour ago
https://www.fox5atlanta.com › news
<End>


They say that he'd shot one of them, but no gunpowder residue was initially found on his hands (the bit that was later discovered, could have been due to contamination, from police). Family says Teran had both hands raised, when police shot him, 57 times. Bullet holes were found through both of Teran's palms.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Manuel_Esteban_Paez_Terán

<Snip>
Bodycam footage from the incident includes video recordings of police from the scene speculating that the officer's gunshot injury was the result of friendly fire.[3][4][5][6] Autopsy results showed Paez Terán sustained 57 gunshot wounds, and found no visible gunpowder residue on their hands, indicating that they had not fired at police.[7][8] However, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) report found traces of gunshot primer that could be present either from Paez Terán shooting a weapon, police gunshots, or contamination.[9]

Terán's family claims that Paez Terán's hands were up at the time of the shooting, based on independent autopsy results showing bullet exit wounds in both hands.[10][11][12]
<End Snip>


Makes you wonder, who are the real domestic terrorists, in this story.

 

Tell it to the jury.

Sure, "Riots are the language of the Unheard" unless they are Republicans. Well, welcome to 'turnaround is fair play.'

So they did find gunshot residue.

The jury will decide. Remember? You're a big fan of RICO charges.

 

Your explanation is clear and thorough. I just wanted to mention that this is going to be an extremely complicated case. Unlike the Mar-a-Lago case that is simple, straightforward and easy to prove for the prosecutor. The only complexity is to convince the judge to get on with it.

However, the Gerogia prosecutor has enormous experience with RICO. There is NO way she would bring a former President to trial if she didn't have overwhelming evidence. However, as the judge pointed out, I am skeptical that this will take 4 months. Especially given that Trump's main purpose is not to win the case, but to delay it as much as possible. And he might be able to extend it with appeals, motions,.... and many delay tactics.

 

Agree totally on the delay tactics point.

The RICO case itself has one important advantage: If the narrative told by the prosecutor is believed by the jury and supported by events, then mere membership in the "organization" is sufficient for a conviction.

 

Plus it would be a state conviction. Even if another GOP candidate won the presidency, they couldn't pardon him. And Georgia's own laws make it so that he'd have to serve time before being pardoned. She's going all-out on this one though. RICO charges . . . almost 20 defendants? It all seems warranted, but it provides a ton of delay tactic fuel and I doubt we'll actually see this trial conclude before the election. Smith is taking the opposite tactic. It seems like everything he's put together is pretty open and shut. I originally predicted that none of those cases would conclude before the election either, but I've been pleasantly surprised there.

 

Some of the defendants are arguing it would be unfair to their cases, because they are only being charged with one of the "conspiracies". It might bias the jury against them, since the jury will have to sit through many long hours of hearing evidence that doesn't apply to that individual, and the jury might get confused and unfairly lump that one defendant together with other crimes that defendant was not specifically accused of.

The judge right now appears to be trying to take a "middle-of-the-road" decision, separating the defendants out into different groups, so they will not be tried alone individually but neither will all of them be tried together in one gigantic trial. The judge probably figures this is the best compromise, hearing the arguments from both sides, since a trade-off exists either way.

In one gigantic trial, it would probably be too difficult for a jury of average people to be able to keep all the facts straight and remember who is who, and which specific individuals are being accused of what. Average people are also subject to emotional bias, so it would not be fair to lump them all together.

for more information read "Judge orders 2 defendants in Georgia election interference case to be tried Oct. 23" - ABC News
Judge 'very skeptical' of DA's push to try Trump, 18 co-defendants together in Georgia election case - ABC News

 

It's possible the federal courts could still overturn it based on jurisdiction arguments. Since the alleged crimes were not physically committed in that state.
It is a Constitutional grey area.

 

Except some of the defendants are demanding their right to speedy trial and want to move up their trial dates.

(Because they are also facing separate lawsuits, and don't want anything they will say in the lawsuits to be able to be used against them or bias their criminal trial)

 

Thanks for updating the thread-- that's just the kind of help, I'd been hoping for!


UPDATE: Judge McAfee orders Powell & Cheseboro To Be Tried Together.

The first trial date for this case, is October 23rd.

<Snip>
A Fulton County judge set an October trial date for two of the defendants in DA Fani Willis' sprawling Georgia election interference case, but held off on determining what would be done with the other 17 defendants, including former President Donald Trump.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said he was "very skeptical" of Willis' plan to try all 19 co-defendants together, but told prosecutors, "I'm willing to hear what you have to say on it."

New details about the prosecution's case also emerged Wednesday, including that prosecutors expect the racketeering trial to last four months and include more than 150 witnesses.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee set an Oct. 23 trial date for attorney Kenneth Chesebro and former Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell, both of whom had filed speedy trial demands as well as motions to sever their cases from the other defendants, including from each other.

The judge, however, said that severing them from each other would not be needed to achieve a fair trial.
<End>

 

Willis is nowhere close to being ready to "get on with it". She isn't ready to try two defendants, much less all nineteen. That's why she's trying to deny Chesebro his right to a speedy trial.

Worst case scenario for Willis is that all, or most of the accused demand a speedy trial. In Georgia, if she isn't ready by the court date, it's an automatic acquittal.

 

I think another "advantage" of RICO, though not as officially, as the one you note, is that because it makes conviction more likely-- and, I would assume, potential sentences for some, heavier than if they'd been tried alone, for just their own part-- there is more incentive for some to plea bargain, by becoming a prosecution witness (which, in turn, makes conviction of the others, even more likely).


EDIT:
As a side note, interestingly, even among those who see the charging of multiple parts of the election interference conspiracy as a win for American Justice, there is a kind of a quiet acknowledgement, that the not unlikely bias against defendants, created by RICO charging, is a practice that is now coming into question, by some in the legal community. The attitude I've heard from more than one commentator, has been to preface their opinion with something like, "aside from any criticisms about the fairness of RICO, it is the law."

 

Having that many defendants in the room at once almost certainly denies justice and will be a ****ing circus. A jury can't pay attention that long or remember that much. Further: You can't expect the jury to be off work and not getting paid for 4 ****ing months. That's so unreasonable I have nothing but asterisk applicable words for the idea in general.
Counsel is going to have a near impossible time preserving error for appeal, there will be 19 lawyers objecting at once.

 

There are pros and cons to keeping all the defendants together or not. If we look the rapper Young Thug, he is also currently charged with RICO, Drugs, and some other charges. So far, all defendants are together. Jury selection was started in February this year and it is still going. All the attorneys for all the defendants have each their number of exclusions for jurors. Same with Trump and his defendants with the trial starting in March 2024.

Trump is also considering trying to move the case into federal court and may file the motion prior to when the Trial starts. We still have not heard from the judge on the Meadowns petition to do so, although when he testified, he pretty much violated the HATCH Act when describing his duties.

Moving the case out of Atlanta may exaggerate the jury selection, and it may be in Savannah, Chatham County as the possible alternate location. Not too many other major cities in Georgia can handle a case like this, and I suspect Trump lawyers may request Coffee County, Muscogee, or Richmond counties. Although they favored trump in the last Presidential election, their popoulaiton is a lot smaller than Fulton or Dekab counties. And Decab county may not favor Trump as much, but the Judge may consider it since Decalb and Fulton are neighbors, literally.

 

In some ways, I think it is kind of a stretch to accuse all the defendants of being part of the same "conspiracy".
The connection between all of them is pretty loose and tenuous.

The prosecutor is just going to try to portray a picture and make it seem like there was some grand conspiracy.
That will be easier for the prosecutor if they're all together in the same trial.

 

Things are far from nailed down, at this point, you are right. The venue, number of trials, and groupings of the accused, in those trials, are all still TBD.

What we do know, is that Willis will remain the prosecutor, even if the cases are moved to Federal Court. An important difference, is that cameras are not normally allowed in Federal Court, though it would seem, in this unique case, that having the proceedings open to public scrutiny would be a real boon, in lessening the magnitude of an adverse reaction, from those believing that Trump is being railroaded. It might even get a few of Trump's supporters to finally see beyond the Donald's version of reality. Whether members of Congress can persuade the Court to allow cameras, if the federal system does become the venue, would be yet another open question.

 

Willis is looking for street cred with the Democrats and nothing more. Same goes for Alvin Bragg and Jack Smith.

The Fulton County jail has had 16 prisoners die this year. The violent crime rate is double the national average. She has bigger fish to fry, but none of that will get her name in the paper near as much.

I mean think, who the hell outside of Fulton County ever hear of Fani Willis before she started going after Trump?

 

She's hoping for a friendly jury that will go along with nothing more than, "they're all guilty, take my word for it".

 

So what ?
We have to get permission from the Trumpers as to who is worthy of prosecuting the Orange Stain ?


LMAO

 

Oh no! I think y'all picked the exact person for the job...lol.