Sydney Powell spilled the beans

Yes, she can testify against the other defendants, but she still has the right to not incriminate herself in those other trials, too. She is listed as an unnamed co-conspirator in one set of charges. That means she could be charged in that group.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. That’s just how the system works.

Understood about other trials. I'm only referencing this trial and this plea deal. Obviously if she's charged with DUI, she can plead the Fifth in court on those charges.
 
Can't wait to see it but I have a funny feeling she doesn't have any documents.

If she doesn't have anything to support her testimony, the plea deal was a mistake.

She is not mentally stable, even though Trump listened to her and let her represent him.
 
If she doesn't have anything to support her testimony, the plea deal was a mistake.

She is not mentally stable, even though Trump listened to her and let her represent him.

The prosecution would be foolish to give a sweet plea deal (probation, no jail time) without getting the goods. I'm guessing the prosecution got the goods.
 
He sure has had a lot of special treatment and been given the benefit of the doubt more than most people.
More than anyone. He's baiting the judge for a future appeal.

No defendant in history was ever stupid enough to insult the judge if he hoped to win at trial.
 
The prosecution would be foolish to give a sweet plea deal (probation, no jail time) without getting the goods. I'm guessing the prosecution got the goods.

Lets hope so, she is not very creditable on her own.

Unless their strategy to counter the "advice of counsel" defense is to show the jury that she is clearly so insane that no reasonable person would have relied on her advice.
 
Lets hope so, she is not very creditable on her own.

Unless their strategy to counter the "advice of counsel" defense is to show the jury that she is clearly so insane that no reasonable person would have relied on her advice.

Not a lawyer, but if the prosecution has several witnesses saying the same thing, that seems to be strong evidence it's true.

Documentation always helps.
 
More than anyone. He's baiting the judge for a future appeal.

No defendant in history was ever stupid enough to insult the judge if he hoped to win at trial.

True, but a good judge can be insulted all day long, and still allow a fair trial.

As a lawyer I have often been at odds with judges, they usually back down when they are wrong. I like to make everyone feel that it is my courtroom and Judges often like to fight that.
 
Not a lawyer, but if the prosecution has several witnesses saying the same thing, that seems to be strong evidence it's true.

Documentation always helps.

I have always disagreed with this rule, but most judges do not allow cumulative evidence. You are not allowed to have several witnesses say the same thing.
 
True, but a good judge can be insulted all day long, and still allow a fair trial.

As a lawyer I have often been at odds with judges, they usually back down when they are wrong. I like to make everyone feel that it is my courtroom and Judges often like to fight that.
LOL. I'm sure they don't like being slandered on the news.
 
I have always disagreed with this rule, but most judges do not allow cumulative evidence. You are not allowed to have several witnesses say the same thing.
If the defense attempts to impeach one witness, then I'm sure having others is necessary.

In the OJ trial a woman who witnessed him speeding through an intersection close to Nicole's house was never called. She had issues with credit card companies and was deemed 'unreliable'.

Was she blind also?
 
Yes, I am surprised he is obeying the gag orders.
He's gone through a lot of lawyers already. I suspect the ones he has now threatened to quit if he didn't.

What is your opinion not on Pedo Don's mouth, but the situation his lawyers are facing with gag orders?
 
If the defense attempts to impeach one witness, then I'm sure having others is necessary.

In the OJ trial a woman who witnessed him speeding through an intersection close to Nicole's house was never called. She had issues with credit card companies and was deemed 'unreliable'.

Was she blind also?

Seems like a silly reason not to call a witness.
 
I have always disagreed with this rule, but most judges do not allow cumulative evidence. You are not allowed to have several witnesses say the same thing.

So if three witnesses say they watched Pedo Don rape a 15 year old girl on Pedo Island, it would be inadmissible?
 
So if three witnesses say they watched Pedo Don rape a 15 year old girl on Pedo Island, it would be inadmissible?

Two of them might, depending on the judge. Unless a witness has something new to offer it is considered cumulative.
 
Back
Top