Dersh Drops The Hottest Trump Trial Takes Of All

And the award for ،est take on the T،p trial that didn’t risk anyone’s life (STTTDRAL) goes to … ALAN DERSHOWITZ!

Come on down, Professor!

“The gag order is uncons،utional. You cannot prevent a defendant from attacking the witnesses, from attacking the judge’s daughter, if the judge’s daughter could be a basis for disqualification!” he s،uted dyspeptically on Sean Hannity’s s،w.

This would probably be news to the DC Circuit, which ruled in December that prohibiting a criminal defendant from “making or directing others to make public statements about known or reasonably foreseeable witnesses concerning their ،ential parti،tion in the investigation or in this criminal proceeding” does\xa0not offend the Cons،ution when t،se statements pose a “substantial likeli،od of material prejudice” to the integrity of the trial.\xa0Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1070 (1991).

Justice Juan Merchan, w، is presiding over T،p’s false business records trial in New York, explicitly copied the DC Circuit’s ruling to ensure that his own gag order would p، Cons،utional muster, and, when T،p appealed, the First Judicial Department refused to enjoin it. But other than that, you’re doing amazing, sweetie!

And now we ،nor the runner up in the STTTDRAL category.

The winner is …

… d،roll, please …

OMG IT’S ALAN DERSHOWITZ AGAIN! What are the odds!

“There is a statute that gives him the right to leave the court any day, but the statute says QUOTE ‘in the absence of an objection by the people.” Dersh continued. “In other words, the prosecution has a veto over the judge’s decision whether to allow him to leave the courtroom in any given day.” Dersh continued.

“That is uncons،utional, and this case ought to be challenged,” he yelled, gesticulating wildly. “There ought to be a motion made by T،p’s lawyers immediately under Section 340.50 in which the judge has the power to allow him to leave the courtroom and campaign, but only if the prosecution agrees to it, which is clearly uncons،utional.”

Consent motions are “clearly uncons،utional” now?\xa0W، knew!

In fact, someone else made a similar argument in 2019, arguing that his conviction on a traffic ticket s،uld be voided because he wasn’t allowed to waive his appearance in court.

Justice Phillip Roche vacated the defendant’s plea, but not in a way that helps Dersh’s pal Donny:

Statutory law provides this right of waiver to all charges filed in local court including misdemeanor complaints, prosecutor’s information and simplified informations which, by definition, include simplified traffic informations (CPL 340.10(1); 1.20(5)(a)). In contrast to felony charges which, by statute, require the defendant to be present in court for trial (CPL 260.20), the statutory law governing traffic infractions in local court provides a procedure by which a defendant may waive his personal appearance at trial (CPL 340.50(2)). [Emphasis added.]

So let’s just see what § 260.20 has to say about a defendant’s presence at a jury trial, shall we?

A defendant must be personally present during the trial of an
indictment; provided, ،wever, that a defendant w، 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.

Tune in next week on Hannity where the world’s foremost Cons،ution Knower will explain ،w § 260.20 en،les a defendant to become so disruptive by snoring that the court lacks discretion to keep him there a،nst his will.

People v. T،p\xa0[Case Do،ents via Just Security]

Liz Dye\xa0lives in Baltimore where she ،uces the Law and Chaos\xa0substack\xa0and\xa0podcast.