Speaking as someone who has worked as both a court recorder and then in a forensic accounting firm for more than two decades, I may have picked up a few things by sheer osmosis. Even I as not even a simple country lawyer, have to ask the question if Alina Habba paid any attention at all in Law School? Judge Lewis Kaplan in the trial of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump (aka Carroll II) has had to keep on reminding Ms. Habba about such procedures as "Evidence 101".
By way of background, author E. Jean Carroll has filed to cases against Donald Trump, relating to Ms Carroll's accusation from mid-2019 that that he sexually assaulted her in early 1996. Of course Mr. Trump denied any and all accusations and in his usual pattern of behaviour, accused her of lying. This then prompting Ms. Carroll to pursue legal action; resulting in her bringing a defamation case against Donald Trump, and to try to sue him for damages.
She won that case and in November 2022, Ms. Carroll filed a second claim, which renewed her claim of defamation and added a claim of battery per the Adult Survivors Act, which allows sexual-assault victims to file civil law claims after the statutes of limitations have expired in the State of New York. That case filed in 2023, further found Trump liable for defamation because of his 2019 statements and returned on Tuesday this week to determine on how much Trump further owes Ms. Carroll in additional damages.
At work, we have watched this case play out as though we were watching an ongoing soap opera. Somehow I think that Mr. Trump cares not an iota about what the outcome is because any publicity is good publicity; this case was absolutely perfectly timed with the Iowa Caucuses for the Republican Party nomination; where Trump won 20 of the 40 delegates. It doesn't matter if some people hate you as long as they keep on saying your name; because that can and does equate to votes.
Over the course of this case though and with many of Mr. Trump's former legal team either ending up in prison, or refusing to touch further cases, he has had to find new legal counsel and his defense lawyer Alina Habba, appears to be working for gratis; perhaps hoping that the notoriety will gain her further business. However, the truth on show for all the world to see is that she doesn't appear to be very good and Judge Lewis Kaplan is less than impressed. In this circus, Judge Kaplan is quite fed-up with the carry-on of Mr. Trump's legal team, and has repeatedly complained and made statements about their conduct.
If this wasn't already a defamation case, then maybe Ms. Habba might very well be liable for libel herself, when she asked Ms. Carroll if she "makes a good amount of money from her Substack"; and Judge Kaplan wasn't have that either. Those famous words of "immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent" came out and Judge Kaplan made the almost unbelievable outburst that Ms. Habba has no idea how to introduce evidence in court. Perhaps to add another layer of silliness in this clown show, Judge Kaplan has had to resort to spoon feeding Ms. Habba procedural information in the same way you that I imagine that you would help a law school student in a mock trial. Again, I do not know what actually happens in law school and for me this is a bit like looking at a black box to guess what the inputs were by looking at the output.
Again, I am not a lawyer and so I am very much talking out of turn but it seems to me as an observer that the procedure for submitting evidence in court is as simple as:
- Ticket.
- Say it.
- Show it.
- Thank you.
Submitting things into evidence aught to be at bare minimum, the stock and trade of a solicitor or barrister at court. I should think that a basic competency of a lawyer, is knowing the rules of how that particular court operates. Ms. Habba seems to be woefully inadequate. I suppose that if your only solace is to find a lawyer who is working for gratis, then you get what you pay for.
For argument's sake, suppose that my client has been charged with the murders of two men, Buquet and Piangi, and has been made to appear before the court by Public Prosecutor's Office. In the Case of The People v. P.Hantom then my regime for submitting evidence would be as follows:
1 - Get the Evidence Ticketed.
If it pleases the court, I would like to submit No.665 into evidence.
2- Offer a brief description of the item in question.
No.665, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a papier-mâché musical box in the shape of a barrel-organ. Attached, the figure of a monkey in persian robes, playing the cymbals. This item, discovered in the vaults of the theatre, still in working order.
3 - Offer the item in question for examination.
I would like to ask my learned colleagues (as well as the witness/expert) to look at this papier-mâché musical box in the shape of a barrel-organ, to familiarise themselves with it, for future reference.
4 - Thank the court.
If it pleases the court, I would like to offer No.665 into evidence. Its relevance and importance shall be explained later. At this point court is free to ask questions about the item but not necessarily about its relevance and importance as that will be explained during some logical point in the procedings.
I have been witness in court to many rather dull procedural hearings in which evidence is submitted for ticketing and nothing else. Usually this procedure happens in call over hearings, and/or in specific discovery hearings so that the other side can either get copies of the relevant documents or if the pieces of evidence are physical, that they then get a decent chance to look and make notes. Ms. Habba seems blissfully unaware of how courts work; this is not helped by her client who is intent on using the courtroom as a stage from which to prove how much the system is against him. I will admit that it is a new strategy to prove how much the system is against him through blithering incompetence.
No comments:
Post a Comment