We are obliged to agree with the media commentators, that the current situation relative to the various criminal indictments against Donald J. Trump, in his capacity as past President of the United States, is historically, unique and unprecedented. However, we would observe that the prosecutorial situation is yet more unique; in fact, singularly, unique, in the entire historic universe of criminal trials. After a relatively brief note on the Rules of Evidence, applicable to the conduct of trials, more specifically, those, importantly, relative to the introduction of testimony and the admission of evidence, we will elucidate our, apparently, extreme declaration.
The vast, referential and ultimate guide to the issues of legal admissibility of evidence and testimony, is embraced within a body of adjective law called, “The (Federal or State, as applicable) Rules of Evidence.” The purpose of these mandatory laws is that of ensuring a fair and objectively, accurate trial; one not tainted with subjective assumptions, hearsay, or prejudicial testimony or inapplicable, but prejudicial, proffers of evidence. The legal discipline of “Evidence Law,” is all-encompassing, determinative, and by virtue of its plethora of general but, mandatory, strictures is often the subject of forensic debate. An attorney in a civil or criminal case, responsibly, needs to materially, consider the issue of the availability, admissibility and determinative weight of the potentially intended evidence in each specific case.
The numerous “Hearsay Rules,” “Expert or Opinion Evidence,” “The Dead Man’s Statute,” “Admissions, Against Interest,” ”Legal Standing,” “Documentary Proofs and the Best Evidence Rule,” “Law of the Case, and Precedential Determination,” Official Documents and Authenticity,” “Interested Witness Rules,” “Expert Testimony,” “Direct, Cross and Expert Testimony,” “ Testimony or Proffers of Evidence,” “Official Notice, Documentary and Judicial Notice,” and others, legislated and applied are purposed to ensure a fair trial and avoid prejudice to the accused or the litigating parties. Their application is material and, to such extent, often can be subjects of contention at trial. The contested issues involved in a Judge’s denial, or admission, of testimonial or physical evidence, often is the subject of appeal. The latter observation is notably, applicable in criminal cases, such as where guilt has been determined largely dependent upon the admission of a particular item of evidence or on certain material testimony.
In an earlier portion of this essay, we declared that the pending indictments and trials, regarding Donald J. Trump are unique; to the degree, we asserted, more singular than the unprecedented, historical experience of the criminal indictment of a past President. We have conceded the (inarguable) fact that no past President of the United States has been the subject of a criminal indictment and trial, however, we would observe that, remarkably, Trump’s crimes have been witnessed on public television and have thus been, incontrovertibly, proven to a jury of the American television public. The Statutes, designed to protect the possible innocence of the accused, relative to Trump’s several indictments, have incontrovertibly, been rendered, considerably, irrelevant and factually, unnecessary.
We would refer to the pending criminal charges (cases) against Trump: the purloining, and deceitful withholding of secret government documents, the illegal direction to the Secretary of State of Georgia, to alter the official voting results, the conception, incitement and support of an insurrection against the American Government and interference with the American election. What is singular (and we maintain most unique) is the bizarre fact that every one of his indicted offenses, as charged, indeed, have been witnessed by the vast, American, television public.
The grave Federal charges regarding documentary espionage, have all been attested to and witnessed, by Trump’s multiple admissions by his televised (preposterous) defensive assertion, that a President has the right, to take away government (CIA and Defense Department) secret documents, his publicized refusal to return them, and by the televised photos of the many cartons of the highly sensitive documents stored by him at accessible places at his public hotel resort at Mar-a- Largo, viz., bathroom, cloakroom, etc.
The charges, as indicted, concerning Trump’s initiation, incitement and encouragement of the violent insurrection against the Nation, were all witnessed and heard on public television, in all of its nefarious stages, as was the violent and bloody Bastille-like attack on Washington itself.
The shameless, criminal words of Trump’s deceitful telephone request, made to the Georgia Secretary of State, to alter the vote results, were viewed and heard on National television as were many other of his like undemocratic and fraudulent felonies.
The Federal and State Rules of Evidence, regarding criminal charges, were legislated, among other appropriate reasons, to avoid the erroneous and unjust conviction of the innocent, for crimes they, in fact, did not commit. Under the specific circumstances, relevant to Donald J. Trump as an accused criminal defendant, we are, somewhat, curious concerning their essential relevance and applicability.
*Our thanks, to Ms. Agatha Christie for the essay title.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 