XPost: misc.legal, alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: talk.politics.guns, sac.politics
From: pothead@snakebite.com
On 2024-05-22, useapen wrote:
> I have observed and participated in trials throughout the world. I have
> seen justice and injustice in China, Russia, Ukraine, England, France,
> Italy, Israel, as well as in nearly 40 of our 50 states.
>
> But in my 60 years as a lawyer and law professor, I have never seen a
> spectacle such as the one I observed sitting in the front row of the
> courthouse yesterday.
>
> The judge in Donald Trumps trial was an absolute tyrant, though he
> appeared to the jury to be a benevolent despot. He seemed automatically to
> be ruling against the defendant at every turn.
>
> Many experienced lawyers raised their eyebrows when the judge excluded
> obviously relevant evidence when offered by the defense, while including
> irrelevant evidence offered by the prosecution.
>
> But when the defenses only substantive witness, the experienced attorney
> Robert Costello, raised his eyebrows at one of New York Supreme Court
> Justice Juan Merchans rulings, the court went berserk.
>
> Losing his cool and showing his thin skin, the judge cleared the courtroom
> of everyone including the media.
>
> For some reason, I was allowed to stay, and I observed one of the most
> remarkable wrong-headed biases I have ever seen. The judge actually
> threatened to strike all of Costellos testimony if he raised his eyebrows
> again.
>
> That of course would have been unconstitutional because it would have
> denied the defendant his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and
> to raise a defense.
>
> It would have punished the defendant for something a witness was accused
> of doing.
>
> Even if what Costello did was wrong, and it was not, it would be utterly
> improper and unlawful to strike his testimony testimony that undercut
> and contradicted the governments star witness.
>
> The judges threat was absolutely outrageous, unethical, unlawful and
> petty.
>
> Moreover, his affect while issuing that unconstitutional threat revealed
> his utter contempt for the defense and anyone who testified for the
> defendant.
>
> The public should have been able to see the judge in action, but because
> the case is not being televised, the public has to rely on the biased
> reporting of partisan journalists.
>
> But the public was even denied the opportunity to hear from journalists
> who saw the judge in action because he cleared the courtroom.
>
> I am one of the few witnesses to his improper conduct who remained behind
> to observe his deep failings.
>
> Even when journalists do report on courtroom proceedings, their accounts
> must be taken with a grain of salt. When you watch CNN or MSNBC, you
> generally see an account of a trial that never took place.
>
> They spin the events so much that reality is totally distorted.
>
> I experienced that distortion firsthand yesterday, when I saw one of my
> former students and research assistants, a CNN legal analyst named Norman
> Eisen, during a break and went over to him and asked him about his family.
> We chatted for a few minutes in the most friendly way.
>
> But NBC, the Daily Beast and other media decided to make up a story about
> the event. They claimed that I had a spat with my nemesis, rather than a
> friendly conversation with a former student. Their account was made up,
> yet it was circulated through the media.
>
> To his credit, Eisen wrote to the media to correct the account, saying
> that the person sitting next to him would confirm the medias false
> reporting. I doubt we will see a retraction.
>
> This minor incident is simply the tip of a very large and deep iceberg of
> false reporting about the trial that can only occur because the
> proceedings are not being televised.
>
> There are television cameras in the courtroom, and they record and
> transmit every word, but not to the public; only select reporters in the
> overflow room see what the cameras transmit.
>
> There is absolutely no good reason why a trial of this importance, or any
> trial, should not be televised live and in real time. Allowing the public
> to see their courts in action is the best guarantee of fairness. As
> Justice Louis Brandeis wisely said a century ago, Sunlight is the best
> disinfectant.
>
> When I was a kid growing up in Brooklyn, we used to listen to the colorful
> account of Dodger games rendered by Red Barber on the radio.
>
> Occasionally when I went to a game and brought my portable radio, I could
> hear how the old redhead, as we called him, colorfully elaborated and
> exaggerated what was occurring on the field.
>
> Once television came along and everyone could watch the games live, the
> accounts became far more accurate, because we could see everything for
> ourselves.
>
> A similar phenomenon would operate if trials were televised; it would
> force commentators to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
>
> Today there is no check on partisan reporting of trials and exaggerations
> and personal opinions are rampant.
>
> The American public is the loser.
>
> Alan Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School.
>
> https://nypost.com/2024/05/21/opinion/i-was-inside-the-court-when-the-
> judge-closed-the-trump-trial-and-what-i-saw-shocked-me/
The only thing missing is a troupe of kangaroos.
--
pothead
Joe Biden is the absolute WORST President Of the U.S. ever.
Nobody else is even close. Including Jimmy Carter.
Vote for ANYBODY but Joe Biden in 2024.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
