No, I'm not an attorney and didn't even sleep at a Holiday Inn last night...

[WarGamer]

What kind of testimony is allowed at a trial like this?

The only trial I can remember following closely was OJ...

It seemed like just about everyone was allowed to testify.

But my main question is... is the defense allowed to argue the LAW in Court? And how the law is being applied in this trial?

Specifically... I saw Dershowitz on Twitter ripping the government charges. I know that he's a former smart guy turned hack... maybe Trump has Kompromat?

Can someone like Dershowitz be called as an expert and argue the law and it's juxtaposition to the case?

Logic says no, because he's not a witness and the testimony isn't directly related to the crimes, just the legal background surrounding the charges.

Experts?

[elleng]

1. IF he had something relevant to contribute, dersh might be called,

but I can't think of anything relevant he might contribute.

[regnaD kciN]

14. Besides, he'd be just as likely...

…to start producing legal arguments on why the age of consent is actually unconstitutional.

[WarGamer]

2. And while I'm asking questions...

If Trump asks for a change of venue and it's denied... is it appeal-able at that point or only after a conviction?

[elleng]

5. 'An order granting or refusing a change of venue is not directly appealable,

in the absence of statutory authority to the contrary.[v] An order denying a motion on forum non conveniens grounds is nonappealable, because it means becoming entangled in the merits of the case in assessing questions such as:

the relative ease of access to the sources of proof;
the availability of witnesses, and
the actual locus of the alleged culpable conduct.[vi]'

https://appeals.uslegal.com/appealability-or-reviewability-of-particular-types-of-decisions-proceedings-or-issues/appeals-regarding-jurisdiction-process-and-venue/

[WarGamer]

7. That's a relief... I was afraid SCOTUS could order the case be held in NOVA in a purple county.

thanks!!

[elleng]

11. Wouldn't really matter, imo.

Juries take their job VERY seriously, and jury selection is carefully done.

[underpants]

6. First question- I don't think so.

The question of law is on appeal(s). SCOTUS is only an argument on law, as I understand it.

I thought Dersch said he couldn’t defend Trump on the air anymore.

Second question- No. it’s very rare to get a change of venue…unless it benefits the cops (Rodney King).

[WarGamer]

9. Yeah Dersh says he has a "one time" policy re: representing clients.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

15. He just got his ass sanctioned for Kari Lake

Maybe he learned a lesson.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

20. Most things are subject to appeal

With federal cases, a venue change can happen when someone is too well-known in a particular, limited area. Where can this idiot go that he's not well-known? He was POTUS, for crying out loud. Every American knows who he is.

If you do appeal something so silly, he would still need to establish a good case to have it heard, never mind ruled upon in his favor. I don't think this idiot doing the legal equivalent of whining that the judge and jury don't like him will fly with any appeals court.

Trial judges tend to have pretty wide latitude to make the call for a venue change, so it would take something quite egregious for an appeals court to rule that a judge's decision not to change venues was faulty. We're talking a judge who makes extremely prejudicial remarks about the defendant, serious errors in her rulings that indicate prejudice or putting her finger on the scale--things like that.

It's the rare federal judge who's that stupid. So the idiot could appeal all he wanted, but I have no doubt that an appellate court would smack him down, and hard.

I think you're worrying for nothing.

[claudette]

3. I'm not a lawyer but

I don’t think “extra” lawyers can be called in as “expert witnesses” to give their opinion. Only the assigned lawyers can represent the defendant.

[WarGamer]

4. Dershowitz said in the same interview he would NOT represent Trump.

[claudette]

18. Good

So his expert opinion means nothing 😊

[Piratedog]

8. Dershowitz is just trying to keep his Fox seat warm. He's full of it.

He wouldn’t want to defend trump against Jack smith. No way!

[Piratedog]

10. The crime took place in DC. Should be tried in DC. No standing to move out.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. Perhaps Dershowitz is underestimating the depth of evidence

I'm surprised he is trying to claim it is a flimsy case because tRump wins on First Amendment free speech issue. It isn't a 1A case. But it turns on the coordination and the state of mind and all that points to tRump. When there is as much depth of evidence of tRump's state of mind from texts and conversations and decisions tRump made as there is, then the only way he can counter that is by testifying in court as to his own state of mind. But he is his own worst witness, so he is doomed if he does and doomed if he doesn't.

It's his actions, his decisions, where he chose to put pressure, which plans did he agree to, maybe where to spend money, etc.

I'm not a lawyer.

[WarGamer]

13. Man, he'd be the worst witness ever.

[rsdsharp]

16. No, you cannot call a lawyer as a witness to testify as to what the law should be.

The lawyers can argue law in briefs on motions, in a trial brief, and during submission of jury instructions. Ultimately, the decisions as to governing law on an issue rests with the judge, and only she will instruct the jury as to the law.

[WarGamer]

17. great explanation, thanks!

Having Dersh repeat the schpiel I heard on Twitter in front of a Jury could have a real impact, especially if he's viewed as an expert.

Reminds me of another question... prior to a conviction... is there ANY PLACE where SCOTUS can interfere? Meaning, can Trump appeal ANYTHING to a higher court during the pre-trial and trial periods?

Thanks!

[rsdsharp]

22. Generally speaking, an appeal can only be taken from a final judgment.

In this context, that would be when the court enters judgment on the jury verdict. The prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal, to do so would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.

There are occasions when non-final orders can be appealed. These are called interlocutory appeals, and are not appeals of right. The court must grant permission for the appeal. Generally, criminal defendants are not allowed interlocutory appeals. They may be allowed in certain limited situations regarding procedural matters such as jurisdiction of the trial court, but they are rare.

[Ms. Toad]

25. Good explanation -

I was about to come add something similar.

[ExWhoDoesntCare]

19. I'm under the impression

What you're proposing sounds like something for an appeal/appellate court, not a regular criminal trial.

IANAL, but I've never heard of a legal scholar getting on the stand to discuss the finer points of the law to a jury. Juries aren't there to hear arguments about the finer points of the law. Their job is to weigh the evidence and whether or not the state has made its case beyond a reasonable doubt. I think most defense attorneys wouldn't bring in a lawyer like that for the law explanations. They'd build the case themselves to argue a particular point of law with concrete examples/evidence that a jury can understand, and use sidebars or briefs to argue anything more complicated directly with the judge.

I don't see any prosecutor or judge accepting that kind of testimony, anyway. The defense attorney is supposed to do his own arguing from the law for his client, not bring in some narcissistic has-been attention whore to do it for him.

[Ms. Toad]

26. Interpretation of the law can be argued on appeal,

But since law and fact are often intertwined, the better practice is to argue it at the trial level via motions and proposed jury instructions. It would not be raised by expert testimony (even at the appellate level).

It is always better to win at trial than to count on being reversed on appeal.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. The legal issues will be argued by counsel in the case

There will be hearings and briefings on the legal issues before and during the trial. There will be a number of pretrial hearings where legal issues will be argued. During the trial, legal issues will be argued. When the jury is sent out of the courtroom, it is because the attorneys are arguing legal issues. On most major issues, the parties will submit legal briefs arguing the legal issues.

Before the case goes to the jury, the judge will instruct the jury on the law. The parties will argue about the charge/instructions given to the jury and after the judge rules on the charge/instructions, the counsel will object to and preserve error for appeal.

Dershowitz was asked by TFG to be counsel and has declined. Only counsel in the case are supposed to argue issues except for issues where the court has accepted amicus curiae briefing (which is normally only done on appeals). There is no such thing as expert testimony on legal issues. The rules of evidence limits the types of expert testimony and there are fun rules as to expert testimony. Legal issues are never subject to the expert testimony rules. Again, there is no such thing as legal expert testimony.

During the trial, only factual testimony is allowed as to the facts of the case including statements made by the parties. Most out of court statements are not allowed under the hearsay rules. Some statements from parties are allowed under exceptions to the hearsay evidence rules. Experts are allowed to express opinions on some matters subject to the rules of evidence.

Bottom line is that Dershowitz cannot be an "expert" on the law and the court will only consider his arguments if Dershowitz decides to be counsel in this case.

[WarGamer]

24. quite good summary, tyvm

[LetMyPeopleVote]

27. I am a corporate lawyer but I have gotten to try a couple of cases

I have had fun being the case architect on a couple of cases including arguing some summary judgment motions

[LetMyPeopleVote]

23. Dershowitz is sad because how unfair people have been to him after he defended Trump

Link to tweet