The prosecutor’s witness was on the stand. I asked a leading question because I am allowed to do that on cross-examination. The prosecutor objected but with the wrong objection. The judge called us to the bench and told the prosecutor, off the record how to object.
This judge didn’t like me and didn’t like my client. It was perfectly obvious even before he violated his judicial code of ethics and instructed the prosecutor how to object. Then the prosecutor used the right objection. The jury instructions were slanted to convict, and he was convicted.
Last year, Los Angeles Judge, Emely Cole sent a private (ex parte) text to the prosecutor, suggesting that the prosecutor call a rebuttal witness. Then when Cole got exposed she “made a misleading disclosure to the parties and a misleading report to the commission.” In other words, she “lied." The judicial council sanctioned her. But she’s still on the bench.
Yesterday, I golfed with three guys I like and respect, but all three of them were full of misinformation about what Trump “did” and the conduct of the trial. No amount of me explaining seemed to help. Kangaroo courts, like what happened in Manhattan, are "bad". They didn't want to listen to my "by example(s)," or to my explanation as to why corrupt and partisan prosecutors are ruining respect of the law. Our judicial system as a fair arbiter of justice is now wrecked. Run aground. Shattered on the rocks.
In September 1955, two racists went on trial for the murder of Emmett Till. The “jury of their peers” found them not guilty although it was obvious to a blind man that they had murdered Till. No, I am not equating Trump to the tragic injustice of a racist jury picked from a racist town letting Till’s murderers go free. Ask anyone if we should "respect the system" that allowed Till's murderer to walk free. What I am illustrating is that justice can be utterly illusory. Justice, even in the 21st century, clearly depends on the time, and the place, and injustice can depend on the very same.
OJ Simpson murdered two people and a “jury of his peers” found him not guilty. The evidence for conviction was obvious to everyone. Jurors later admitted that in fact, they knew he did it but let him go free because of “racism."
"Respect the system"? No thanks.
“A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” (In re Murchison (1955) 349 U.S. 133, 136.)
“The legitimacy of the Judicial Branch ultimately depends on its reputation for impartiality and nonpartisanship.” (Mistretta v. United States (1989) 488 U.S. 361, 407
Yesterday, when I explained that Trump has been railroaded and I didn't care if a prosecutor is trying a mass murderer, each defendant has a right to a fair trial not a rigged one, one of my golfing buddies just shrugged. It was then I realized that he didn’t care about facts. Orange Man Bad.
Congrats Democrats, you did this.
I had little respect for the "integrity" of the judicial system before the Trump trial because I've seen, first-hand, some judges ignore their ethical duties. But now that a crooked DA and crooked judge have manipulated a willing partisan jury into committing political lawfare against a political opponent. I will not be cowed into “respecting the jury,” when the jury doesn't respect justice.
I am a registered Independent, up to today. I am registering as a Republican.
With all due respect - @#$% your “respect the system."