And it's impeachment talk all the time.
But while everyone is talking impeachment, there are two big trials starting up in New York.
The first is Harvey Weinstein, where he won a motion to be able to show the jury in opening the "dozens and dozens" of loving emails from his accusers:
"What we will counter with are their own words, where they describe loving relations, sensual encounters with Mr. Weinstein," defense attorney Damon Cheronis said during oral arguments Tuesday. "Mr. Weinstein is described as someone they care about both before and after the alleged sexual assault."Of course he should be able to do so, and it's weird that it was even a question.
"Another complaining witness who claims Harvey Weinstein sexually assaulted her sent him an email wanting to introduce him to her mother," Cheronis argued at another point, though he never specified to whom among the six he was referring.
For the other big NY trial, we move to federal court where Scott Srebnick and Jose Quinon are representing Michael Avenatti. The big fight right now is trying to get Avenatti out of the SHU, where it is impossible to prepare for trial. Here's Scott's letter and the Warden's response. It's absurd to keep a first-time accused white collar defendant in solitary conditions like El Chapo. Let's hope this doesn't break Avenatti into pleading as the government is trying to do.
It is not weird that it is a question. The reason he was able to sexually assault so many women for so many years is that he was a very powerful person with the power (and willingness) to destroy careers. He had complete (or at least substantial) control of his victims before, during and after the assaults. If he had kept someone chained in his basement you wouldn't get in that the victim said nice things to him to get food and water. That is an extreme example, but my point is that there was an argument to be made to exclude the statements and you made it seem like there was none.
ReplyDeleteBeing locked in the SHU is only one side of the sword...the other is him getting knifed by some psychopath in general population. It is hard to fault BOP for being cognizant of that fact. The travesty is the one size fits all SHU approach (including attendent restrictions) that it always reverts to until pressured otherwise.
ReplyDelete@10:15 - there was no reasonable argument to exclude. The entirety of your comment presumes guilt. Nothing - not a single thing - has been proven; not the sexual assault or the presumed control. And Weinstein has the right to put on the entirety of his defense with the benefit of that legal reality, no matter what the headline news may say about him.
ReplyDeleteAgree with 12:55. Even in 10:15's example, the Defendant should still be able to admit evidence of his interactions with the victim (if he wanted to).
ReplyDelete10:15's basic argument is that Weinstein did it; therefore there is a colorable argument that he should not be able to defend himself at all.
10:15 must be either a prosecutor or an SDFla Judge.
It's as cold as a federal prosecutor's heart.
ReplyDeleteYour welcome!
ReplyDeleteor as cold as a witche's tit. As the saying goes...
ReplyDelete