Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What's not on there. The judge violated judicial rules by donating to Biden and another Democratic organization. I know the amount was minimal, but one need only ask if the same crowd who have zero issue with it would express the same opinion if the judge had donated to Trump and the GOP? I think we all know the answer to that.

Which I didn't dig into because that information is not misinformation. However, context is helpful as this was something that had been discovered before trial, Merchan sought outside opinions on and was told he did not need to recuse and he was disciplined with a caution. When he denied the motion for the recusal, this was something that Trump's team could appeal, and they chose not to.

In addition, Merchan was very even handed with the courtroom. There were times where he had an opportunity to really tip the scales against Trump and chose not to. My opinion on this is much like other things. I know everyone has a bias; you have to account for that. However, there are people who are capable of setting aside biases in order to manage things within the laws and regulations that guide their jobs. That is what you want in career civil servants, and that is what I saw in Merchan's handling of the case.

(06-04-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, in regard to a venue change. I am not familiar with NY law in this regard, but even a local trial location can be changed if the location is prejudicial to the defendant. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that was the case here. I've stated long ago that I think it is an exceedingly difficult task to find a place Trump could receive a fair trial, and that's a sword that cuts both ways. But Manhattan sure as hell ain't the place. Yes, they have the same say in the jury pool that the prosecution does, but when your jury pool is already stacked against you that doesn't mean much.

From my understanding of NY's criminal procedures, a change of venue motion is only done in criminal cases to move the trial to an adjoining jurisdiction in order to broaden the jury pool: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cpl/part-2/title-j/article-230/230-20/

My guess is that this would have been a consideration had jury selection gone on much longer. But as it was, they seated a jury in a relatively timely manner.

(06-04-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize the intent of this thread is to correct misinformation, but I must point out that significant concerns regarding this case remain.

Which is fair. This isn't necessarily about saying nothing is a concern about this case. This is more of a "focus on the right things, not the inflammatory propaganda" type of thing.