The GEORGIA RICO TRIAL: Pretrial Decisions

Her number came up in the drawing.

 

Sure it did...lol

She's already looking at a charge of hiding exculpatory evidence. This is a bad start, boys.

 

Really ? From Trumpers , ‘cause I can’t find anything on the docket in Georgia .

 

Very fair criticisms. I don't think anyone other than perhaps Willis believes that there won"t be more than just one trial, for the remaining 17. In fact, I would not be surprised if Willis expects the accused to be divided, but is only pushing for the maximalist position as, what Secretary of State Raffensperger might term, a "negotiating technique."

I've only heard the suggestion that the defendants he divided, according to the particular conspiracy, in which they'd taken part. But this doesn't work with Willis's intention, to show the entire web of conspiracies, in all trials. Here's an idea, though: what if those indicted, could be separated by degree of involvement, by the severity & seriousness of their criminal acts? One trial for those with lightest involvement, another for the moderately entangled, and a third for the most culpable members of the lot, regardless of in which facet of the overall conspiracy, their collaborative criminality had shown. Feedback on that idea, anyone?

 

Conspiracy charge, especially RICO, is written literally that way. The Prosecution does not have to prove "the left hand does not need to know what the right hand was doing." All the prosecution has to prove were they part of the conspiracy voluntarily and that is a far easier burdern to prove in court. But at the same time, most of all of the codefendants are quite literally also pointing the finger at Trump or someone else and vice versa.

 

Yeah, really...

https://thefederalist.com/2023/09/0...ence-exonerating-georgias-alternate-electors/

 

What, you couldn’t find something from Newsmax, infowars , or breitbart ?

LMAO

 

Great point, which I doubt any of us have considered. Though I'm not following things as intently as you, at this juncture, I have not even heard that point made by a legal talking head.

Yeah, this could get not just complicated, but wacky! If any petition to move someone's trial has yet to be ruled on by the time their trial date arrives, however, nothing stops: their trial goes ahead, even as their petition is under review. I suspect, however, all these petitions will be wrapped up, before that point.

Many thanks, for keeping your sharp watch, on all these demographic considerations. Much appreciated.

 

'Fulton County DA tears into Rep. Jim Jordan over his inquiry into Trump indictment'
Source: NBC News

'Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Thursday rebuked House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan for his decision to investigate the Georgia election interference probe that led to the indictment of former President Donald Trump and 18 other defendants.

In a letter, Willis, a Democrat, accused Jordan, R-Ohio, of overstepping his congressional authority with his recent requests for information pertaining to her investigation. Willis, who was responding to a letter Jordan sent in late August, said there is "no justification in the Constitution for Congress to interfere with a state criminal matter."

Trump was charged in Fulton County last month with felony racketeering and numerous conspiracy charges in the 41-count indictment, which named a total of 19 defendants. Jordan announced that he was launching a congressional probe into Willis' investigation shortly before Trump surrendered to the jail in Fulton County.

"The obvious purpose" of Jordan's requests, Willis said, "is to obstruct a Georgia criminal proceeding and to advance outrageous partisan misrepresentations." She said that his public statements and recent letter "make clear that you lack any legitimate legislative purpose for that inquiry." "Your job description as a legislator does not include criminal law enforcement, nor does it include supervising a specific criminal trial because you believe that doing so will promote your partisan political objectives," she said.'

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...im-jordan-inquiry-trump-indictment-rcna103895

 

The prosecutor has to prove there was a criminal enterprise, not just a coincidence.

 

Thanks for that info, about the automatic acquittal (though if it had been sourced, it would've been even better), which I had only been guessing about.

Your concern for Mr. Cheseboro's trial rights, however, is unnecessary: his trial date is set, within the appropriate timeline, and he will receive all the evidential disclosure, to which he is entitled, per the judge's orders.

I don't know that it is likely that most of the rest will file for speedy trials; but that would not be bad for Willis-- it will make it easier for her to get more in one room, to be tried together, in December, which is now the month set for the trial of any new applicants for speedy trial, before the deadline.

As for the two being tried in October-- she can try to portray this as a chance to practice her case, if she wants, but I see her having to give the full performance for just these two defendants, in October, as a negative, for her: the defense gets to see what she's bringing, and she loses all element of surprise. It's like letting your competition watch your team's training camp, as you go over your plays.

 

Yes, but in that criminal enterprise in a RICO case, the text and audio messages, not to mention emails, they were coordinating to get the alternate electors. However, you will have a text message from person A to Person Cand D, and an Audio recording from Person B to Person E, F and G, and so forth. As long as there is a common them between all the messages, audio recordings, emails, and so forth, it can be very easy to prove. One does not need to register the enterprise with the state to prove that.

 

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2022/title-17/chapter-7/article-7/section-17-7-170/

Your concern for Mr. Cheseboro's trial rights, however, is unnecessary: his trial date is set, within the appropriate timeline, and he will receive all the evidential disclosure, to which he is entitled, per the judge's orders.

 

It can't be "person A, C and D", then, "person B, E, F and G".

To be a criminal enterprise, person A has to be coordinating everything from person B all the way to person S.

 

It is the preponderance of the evidence that is the key. And yes, there may be some evidence that the Prosecution may have that may exonerate the defendants. Happens in almost every trial. But only the jury will decide if there is enough reasonable doubt or not when the evidence is presented.

And yes, this is exculpatory evidence, but I would surmise all motions to have the charges dismissed will be denied by said republican judge in Georgia, and not even the Georgia Supreme Court will have them dismissed.

 

Yes it can With RICOs, it happens. This is what Rudy Guiliani was known for and was the first to successfully to prosecute a person or persons under said statute.

 

An enterprise has to be an organized effort. Not all the players will know each other, but as with a company, there is an organizational chain of command, specifically "upper management" that knows all the employees.

 

Can you give us a link, for that?

Sounds like, though, if I were one of the defendants, I would not tempt the judge, with my behavior, to lock me up in that jail, even for just the night.

And a link, for this?

That the crime rate is high, is of course not Willis's fault-- you are quoting the wrong statistic. As long as prosecutions are going ahead, on schedule, you have no valid reason to cite this, as a criticism. Is the office declining to prosecute a larger than average percentage of those arrested, in Fulton County? Are they downgrading charges more precipitously, to avoid trials, than is elsewhere the norm?

Obviously, just because one comes to prominence, in their job, does not imply that they only do what they do, for that reason. By that rationale, no matter what Trump did, it would be impossible that any DA could prosecute him, based merely on his commitment to the law, the citizens of his district, and his oath to faithfully execute his duties.

 

In the DC case the prosecution requested two motions. The judge illegally rubber-stamped them immediately. The defense lit her up, and she was forced to admit she was wrong for doing so.

This judge is a muppet. She doesn't want to give the defense time to review the discovery and wants to help the prosecution move haphazardly and quickly. It wasn't an accident that the judge ignored local rules of criminal procedure in this case. The prosecution and the judge are testing the waters of how much they can violate the defendants' rights.

 

Your analogy fails, miserably: there are many businesses, in which the President & Executives do not know every truck driver, loading dock worker, and person on their overnight housekeeping staff.

 

A defendant has a right to present exculpatory evidence. It can't be denied.

http://www.gsllaw.com/Favorable-Federal-Decisions-Sept2015.pdf

 

We're talking about 18 people. If you owned a company with 18 employees, you would know every one of them.

The "upper management" of a criminal enterprise knows all the players as well as what role they play in the organization.

 

My bad-- I had thought that McAfee was a Democrat, but I see he was appointed by Governor Brian Kemp.

The U.S. District Judge, for that part of Georgia, Steve Jones, who is hearing Meadows' case move his trial, though, was appointed by Obama.

 

McAfee was elected, not appointed.

 

I never said otherwise, but if there is evidence that was gathered by the prosecution, I was arguing that it is required under the Brady Doctrine to be turned over by the Prosecution to the defense. The jury will listen to all evidence and then make a determination if enough reasonable doubt exists or not.

And I also said that any defense lawyer can file a motion to have the charges dropped, even citing that evidence. The judge will look at the prosecution's evidence and the defense's motion and their evidence and either say the trial will go on because it meets the probable cause standard or dismiss it because it does not meet the probable cause standard. This explains why any evidence that may show innocence is not used exclusively in one way or the other.