New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week

Valletta said:

As I stated, defendants have a right in the Constitution, and I quoted the Constitution, to appear at at trial. There is no clause in the Constitution granting judges the right to require the defendants to appear at each trial.

Click to expand...

There is no clause in the constitution explicitly granting defendants the right to skip it either. The requirement for defendants to attend their own trial is in state and federal law. @Bradskii pointed this out to you in post #13.

Valletta said:

States have their own laws.

Click to expand...

Glad you understand that state laws require Trump to be present.

Valletta said:

These East Coast radicals think they can decide who should be president instead of the people of this country and are brazenly defying the U.S. Constitution

Click to expand...

How ?

Valletta said:

I've worked with an Associated Press bureau chief at the request of he subject on a lengthy article, and the article was anything but balanced. Not one word, not even a hint, of government misconduct. I spoke with the guy after he published the story and asked why. Dead silence. Likewise the Wall Street journal published an outrageously false statement as a reason to end a discussion. That false statement aligned with U.S. government propaganda. Fox too has some bad ones who are not interested in the truth. A lot of "news media" organizations simply have virtually no one with alternate views. Most importantly there are few real investigative reporters left. Don't for one minute trust that the organizations are giving an accurate story based on such a chart.

Click to expand...

But you are ?

Valletta said:

As I stated, defendants have a right in the Constitution...

Click to expand...

You've just been shown the actual law requiring defendants to be present in court. Do you simply ignore anything that doesn't fit into the fantasy land that some people seem to have concocted?

Passover is over.
Some defendants are remanded. If Trump keeps violating the gag order he may enjoy the same fate.
He doesn't make the rules.

Valletta said:

Sixth Amendment​

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.'

"The accused shall enjoy the right" refers to the rights of the accused, not of the judge.

Click to expand...

Trump has spent $50 million on campaign contributions to delay and derail his four trials--and you are upset he isn't getting a speedy trial?
If he wants speed let him strike a plea bargain--or two--or 91!

Bradskii said:

From here: Rule 43. Defendant's Presence


(a) When Required. Unless this rule, Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at:

(1) the initial appearance, the initial arraignment, and the plea;

(2) every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict; and

(3) sentencing.

(b) When Not Required. A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Organizational Defendant. The defendant is an organization represented by counsel who is present.

(2) Misdemeanor Offense. The offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and with the defendant's written consent, the court permits arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing to occur by video teleconferencing or in the defendant's absence.

(3) Conference or Hearing on a Legal Question. The proceeding involves only a conference or hearing on a question of law.

(4) Sentence Correction. The proceeding involves the correction or reduction of sentence under Rule 35 or 18 U.S.C. §3582 (c).

Click to expand...

Those rules are for federal trials. They will have to wait until Trump's Florida or DC trials. This trial is under NY state procedure:

Section 340.50 - Defendant's presence at trial, N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 340.50 | Casetext Search + Citator


1. Except as provided in subdivision two or three, a defendant must be personally present during the trial.
2. On motion of a defendant represented by counsel, the court may, in the absence of an objection by the people, issue an order dispensing with the requirement that the defendant be personally present at trial. Such an order may be made only upon the filing of a written and subscribed statement by the defendant declaring that he waives his right to be personally present at the trial and authorizing his attorney to conduct his defense.
3. A defendant who conducts himself in so disorderly and disruptive a manner that his trial cannot be carried on with him in the courtroom may be removed from the courtroom if, after he has been warned by the court that he will be removed if he continues such conduct, he continues to engage in such conduct.

Valletta said:

There is no valid reason why Trump must be forced to attend this farce of a trial.

Click to expand...

Well, if nothing else, at least he'll get some well-needed rest.



-- A2SG, Goodnight Trump, goodnight grump, goodnight to the old lady whispering "frump"....

Valletta said:

New York Judge Says Donald Trump Can’t Attend Supreme Court Argument Next Week — Update

Trump's attorneys asked for him to be excused from his hush money trial on that date.

deadline.com

There is no valid reason why Trump must be forced to attend this farce of a trial.

Click to expand...

New York Law requires the presence of the defendant unless a) the defendant officially files a statement waiving their right to be present and b) the prosecution doesn't object. It doesn't appear that Trump actually filed such a statement.

Valletta said:

It has been quite common to have no-disclosure agreements and people don't get charged for keeping such agreements quiet.

Click to expand...

Sure. What they do get charged for is falsifying business records in an attempt to hide them.

Valletta said:

That is, people don't get charged in such cases until Trump.

Click to expand...

Unless you are aware of a case with a similar fact pattern that didn't go to trial, there is nothing to support this view.

Valletta said:

The judge is seeking control to keep Trump there, and keep Trump off of the campaign trail if he can.

Click to expand...

Or, maybe, just maybe he's following NY law.

Valletta said:

Trump broke no law. Radical Democrat after Democrat turned down the case because there is no way they can prove Trump had intent to commit a crime.

Click to expand...

The prosecution can’t prove that the paperwork for “legal fess” and “retainers” were really payments to reimburse Cohen for coughing up the $130,000 payment to Ms Daniels?
Well then, case-closed.

Valletta said:

You categorize as your attorney tells you, and obviously don't put down much detail in order not to draw attention--that's the whole point of these agreements. The reason behind bringing charges is that Trump declared he would run for president.

Click to expand...

Did Cohen intend to run for office too? Why’d he get indicted?

Valletta said:

I'm really sick of these arrogant judges and attorneys who think THEY should decide who will be president and not the American people. They are committing the real crimes of election interference.

Click to expand...

The judge is just doing his job.
The prosecution brings a case and it survives all of the legal challenges and then there is a trial.
This is “normal”.
That the Defendant is running for political office doesn’t enter into it.

Valletta said:

Normal? Give me a break. There's a nice review of the facts in the opinion piece below:

"Lawyers have been scouring the civil and criminal codes for any basis to sue or prosecute Trump before the upcoming 2024 election. This week will highlight the damage done to New York’s legal system because of this unhinged crusade. They’ve charged him with everything short of ripping a label off a mattress.
Just a few weeks ago, another judge imposed a roughly half billion dollar penalty in a case without a single victim who lost a single cent on loans with Trump. (Indeed, bank officials testified they wanted more business with the Trump organization).
Now Bragg is bringing a case that has taken years to develop and millions of dollars in litigation costs for all parties. That is all over a crime from before the 2016 election that is a misdemeanor under state law that had already expired under the statute of limitations."

A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system

After an absurd $450 million decision against Trump courtesy of AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg will bring his equally controversial criminal prosecution over hush money paid to Stormy D…

nypost.com

Click to expand...

If a prosecutor think that they have a good enough case to go to trial, let’s do that then?
Why should Donald Trump get a better shake than the lawyer who’s going to testify against him for doing the same “crime”?

Valletta said:

He has no legitimate case. He is trying to interfere with the presidential election. It is an attack against our country and our Constitution.

Click to expand...

If he's done nothing wrong then I hope that he'll be found not guilty. Something tells me there's fat chance of you declaring that you'll likewise accept the verdict if it's guilty.

Valletta said:

He has no legitimate case.

Click to expand...

Oh? Has DA Bragg shared his case with you?

Valletta said:

He is trying to interfere with the presidential election.

Click to expand...

How exactly is he interfering with the election? If he thinks he has enough evidence to secure a conviction he has the responsibility to bring charges. The only reason the election is an issue is because Trump managed to delay responding to subpoenas for his records for a year and a half. This case would have been resolved by now without that.

Valletta said:

It is an attack against our country and our Constitution.

Click to expand...

Please show me the part of the Constitution that says a Presidential candidate is immune from criminal charges.

Hans Blaster said:

Defendants are required to attend trials. Defendants do not have the full freedom of travel as non-defendants. Some are detained pre-trial, others have passports withheld, etc.

Click to expand...

In criminal trials where there exists a flight risk bail can be denied etc.

But usually once the requirements of the law is met and the defendant is deemed not a flight risk it's a completely different scenario.

But even a jailed individual would be allowed the right to attend Supreme Court arguments being made on their behalf... They pull people out of jail for court stuff.

Denying Trump the right to attend the Supreme Court is baseless and an abuse of power. It's not like there's some concern he's gonna skip the country if allowed to go to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers argue cases, if Trump skips out a few days is perfectly normal. Only jailed individuals have to sit there for every event, and they probably just want to, given they are in jail and will be soon staying.

I'd want to be there but I would have the face your accusers thing... Thing with Trump is we know who the accusers are. That's settled. No point being there probably.

He could have the best defense in the world and still be found guilty. This isn't a fair trial by any stretch.

For Trump the Supreme Court is where he needs to be. It's likely the only place he'll see fairness out of.

Valletta said:

It's unlikely he will get a fair trial in New York so I think it is very likely he will be found guilty. But eventually it will be reversed on appeal.

Click to expand...

What basis would the appeal have?

Valletta said:

It's unlikely he will get a fair trial in New York so I think it is very likely he will be found guilty. But eventually it will be reversed on appeal.

Click to expand...

Yet the only evidence you have to base that opinion on is junk reports from rags like the New York Post.

Don't you see the difference in views being presented? Most people, even if they wouldn't vote for Trump under any circumstances whatsoever and would consider his character to be...well, let's just saying lacking, will accept whatever verdict is delivered. If he is innocent, or even if he isn't but is declared to be innocent, then so be it.

You? Whatever is presented you'll accept nothing if it doesn't align with some fantasy world in which some people imagine we're living.

Valletta said:

I've worked with an Associated Press bureau chief at the request of he subject on a lengthy article, and the article was anything but balanced. Not one word, not even a hint, of government misconduct. I spoke with the guy after he published the story and asked why. Dead silence. Likewise the Wall Street journal published an outrageously false statement as a reason to end a discussion. That false statement aligned with U.S. government propaganda. Fox too has some bad ones who are not interested in the truth. A lot of "news media" organizations simply have virtually no one with alternate views. Most importantly there are few real investigative reporters left. Don't for one minute trust that the organizations are giving an accurate story based on such a chart.

Click to expand...

Well, the AP is made up of individual people, and prone to bias, but on average, combining all the news stories from the AP, it is fairly balanced. We can not judge an entire news agency based upon one individual. But yeah, there are a lot of biased reporters out there, and we must be careful reading the news.

Hypothetical example: AP employee "Annie" might skew her articles to the left, while AP employee "Bob" might skew his articles to the right, while AP employee "Charlie" has his articles somewhere in the middle. On average, the three AP employees are in the center.