The DISINGENUITY of the J6 Defense strategy for Inmate P01135809

https://www.rawstory.com/john-lauro-2664613336/

A bit of background research on John Lauro establishes that he is no slouch when it comes to winning high profile cases.

https://www.rightrasta.com/john-lauro-wikipedia/

https://chambers.com/lawyer/john-lauro-usa-5:385604

So WHY the HISTRIONICS this EARLY in the case?

There are a couple of options that come to mind.

There is the possibility that some of Mr Lauro's former clients were "influential" in him taking this case on behalf of the Traitor-in-Chief. IOW's Lauro is doing this "under duress" rather than of his own choosing. Granted this is SPECULATION but by claiming to be "INEFFECTIVE" he is setting himself up to be REMOVED by the judge if she perceives that he is SABOTAGING the defense case. She has an obligation to ensure a FAIR trial and by being DELIBERATELY ineffective Lauro is SABOTAGING that obligation.

Never seen anything like this before myself but it comes across as playing 3D Candyland rather than 3d chess.

Another option is the age old "pound the table" routine because BOTH the LAW and the EVIDENCE are going to CONVICT his client. He has OPENED the DOOR to theatrical presentations in the courtroom which means he can use them to DUPE the Jury by appealing to their emotions rather than the facts in evidence. He ONLY needs to find ONE of them who will fall for his STUNTS. Bear in mind if Judge Chutkin is harsh on his antics he can PLAY the SYMPATHY card with the jurors.

IMO Lauro is smart enough to KNOW that the WEIGHT of EVIDENCE is going to be IMPOSSIBLE to refute so he is coming up with ALTERNATIVE tactics to DISRUPT the Justice System.

That makes Lauro an AGENT of CHAOS!

If I were to hazard a guess the Judge will dismiss him as the defense attorney and Lauro will SMILE all the way to the bank because he, PERSONALLY, will NOT have LOST the most IMPORTANT case in the HISTORY of our nation. That is ALL that matters to him, nothing else, IMO.

 

He knows he has no case, TRAITOR tRump did it. That was the opening argument for the coming appeal.

 

Spot on. "Effective assistance of counsel" is the exact legal phrase used in appeals. So once again Trump is working the system, and the public. Trying to establish a pretense for appeal before the case goes to trial. In a social media post he said he would appeal the decision to start the case on 3/4/24. Something he can not do. He's placing his focus on delegitimizing the process by which he is tried, not his guilt or innocence.

 

Because with 12.8 million discovery documents in this case, it is literally impossible for the defense to go through that many documents in such a short period of time, which is undoubtedly why he said could not be effective because that would mean that they would not have read all discovery documents in the case.

An effective defense would undoubtedly go through every discovery document.

What about this do you find so confusing? It seems fairly obvious to me. High-profile complex cases do not typically go to trial that quickly, and there certainly is not a legitimate reason to do so in this one.

 

Actually several prominent attorneys have discounted that notion. Much of the discovery documents are repetitive and even more are documents that were in TRAITOR tRump’s possession. And, all of it is digitally searchable.

 

Chitkan is literally expecting the defense know all the evidence before the indictment was ever drawn up... wow... any one got an example of that ever in our judicial system... please share it with us...

""documents are repetitive"" Show these repetitive documents...

who are the "several prominent attorneys have discounted that notion"

Chitkan literally is sighting the DOJ categorizing as the reason the defense should not take time to read and

 

Divide the number by 12 if that makes you feel better. That is still FAR too many to go through in such a short period of time.

It does not matter what is or is not in his possession. It is his lawyers that need to go through the discovery documents, not Trump.

The notion of lawyers going through that many documents in a few months is utterly preposterous. I realize you are simply being a loyal soldier by toeing the company line, but the reality is that the volume involved is far too great for such an obviously political nonsensically quick attempt at a trial date.

 

Maybe he realized the mess he got himself into and is seeking the way out that is least damaging to the rest of his career.

If being declared ineffective by a judge, and own admission, is the least damaging, just imagine what the alternatives he has considered might be.

 

Not according to people that do it for a living.

 

Huh?

Therein lies the debate. Id bet you a bundle this case does not start in March or anywhere near that date because it is not possible to review that many documents in that short of time. This is simple common sense and if the judge does not come to their senses, it will surely be overturned on appeal prior to trial if it needs to come to that.

 

That’s not what I’m reading.

 

If it goes forward in March, that would be a slam dunk overturn on appeal based on the obvious inability to go through that much discovery in that short of a time period.

Any judge knows this. If they were unable to appeal prior to a higher court, and the judge went forward regardless, that would indicate that he does not care whether it is overturned and instead just wants the political advantage of having him convicted during the election. I suppose that is a possibility being that this thing is nothing other than naked politics. I doubt any of these trials will actually hold up on appeal, but the real reason is simply to impact the election. What happens several years down the road probably does not concern them much if at all. This is about the election and that is the extent of it.

 

Maybe the judge should consider giving the defense attorneys all the time they want after March 4, but with Trump in prison while they do their research.

Don't worry... it can count as "time served" if he's convicted.

 

I presume that you thought this was a clever retort.

It clearly missed the mark. Zzz.

 

I thought so too.

 

I already said as much, but unfortunately, you are alone in that belief.

 

The only thing we can do with arguments like the ones his attorneys are making is ridicule them. Trump is not the first criminal this judge sees. So this kind of ridiculous nonsense is not going to work with her.. If the jury can go through enough documents to determine he is guilty, I'm sure his defense attorneys can too. The documents are indexed and they have been told how each document will be used in court. If they are used in a different manner than was declared, then they can delay the trial to look at THOSE particular ones.

 

Ridicule him why exactly?

Pointing out that 12.8 million discovery documents cannot possibly be reviewed in that short period of time? Yeah, what kind of a fool points out the obvious ramifications of a slam dunk overturn on appeal for his client (sarcasm).

 

It seems two-fold. Both as a basis for appeal, or a basis for dismissal would be a bonus. When things look dire, better to have the option to appeal, especially for a high-profile figure who has appointed many judges, and some conservative judges may be friendlier on appeal.

Not really though. In the law we want to know what the defendant did and how it fell afoul of the law, versus how we can introduce reasonable doubt into that. Unless the defendant is the author of, or at least signed, those 12.8 million documents, their relevance to the facts of the specific case may be none. If they did not author or sign the documents, reasonable doubt says they may never have even read them so they can't be used against them. Except in a general sense like "he knew this box contained X type of content," but that's more for the other case.

 

Its relevance may be none? It also may be everything. The only people that decide whether the defense needs to decide how to rebut various pieces of evidence is the defense itself. This is not anyone else's call. There is a reason that the prosecution has to turn over all discovery evidence, and that is because the defense has every right to see every bit of evidence prior to trial so that they can rebut their claims. This is not optional. Denying a defendant this right would be a slam dunk overturn on appeal. I suspect these people dont care about that. They one care about 2024. It is obvious.

What are you trying to say? When analyzed, it does not make any sense. Of course the defense has every right to review every piece of evidence thoroughly prior to trial.

You hardly see this quick of a turn-around in a drunk driving case.

 

It's easier to understand for the documents case, so I'll use it as an example.

Let's say Trump had 200,000 pages of documents that were seized. In terms of the law, he was required to return them, and it was especially not okay for him to fail to return them after being asked to do so. Their existence is relevant to the case, but for the most part, their content isn't. It may be important to note they are classified and secret, but their specific content doesn't have much bearing on whether Trump is guilty or not guilty of intentionally mishandling classified documents. And without his signature or other evidence, he could claim to have never even read the document in question. What the prosecution or defense will actually use in the trial is far, far smaller than all of the documents involved in the trial. A search function is useful in helping to sift through them for what is relevant and not.

 

We arent talking about the documents case where the documents taken would be entered into evidence and arent necessarily relevant to what does or does not determine guilt. In that sense, it is like the murder weapon. With the J6 case, those documents are not the murder weapon, rather they contain the dialogue that is going to be used to attempt to prove guilt.

 

You alleged that all documents must be read and understood in their entirety to make a defense. This is not true in general. One could imagine a case for where almost every document matters, like assessing a pattern of fraud from a bank with bank statements. But none of these cases are the type of cases where the content of every document is going to matter for the case. One can narrow down what is relevant and not based upon the laws violated, and the types of actions that would constitute evidence of said crimes.

It looks like the list of actual, meaty substance for this case is about 47,000 documents.

12.8 million documents of discovery shared in Trump Jan. 6 case, prosecutors say | The Hill

 

We arent talking about the documents case where the documents taken would be entered into evidence and arent necessarily relevant to what does or does not determine guilt. In that sense, it is like the murder weapon (physical evidence). With the J6 case, those documents are not the murder weapon, rather they contain the dialogue that is going to be used to attempt to prove guilt.

This makes your analogy invalid. They are apples and oranges. The defense has every right to examine every document in an attempt to find exculpatory evidence or to be prepared for what the prosecution does with that document.

 

Most documents will be irrelevant, and with modern document searching technology, I just don't buy that 7 months isn't enough time. The prosecution seems to think 47,000 documents are the relevant ones. It's not a matter of having somebody read every document, it's a matter of organizing your case, fully understanding the prosecution's case, and sifting through what's relevant.

You just want him to delay the trial until after the election so he can fire the prosecutor and get the case dismissed.