@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Teri_Kanefield

@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social

Former appellate defender and UC Berkeley Law graduate. My practice was limited to representing indigents on appeal.

I’ve written more than a dozen books and published more than 50 short pieces in The Washington Post, Cnn.com, and others. My book prizes include the Jane Addams Book Award.

Tfr

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Okay, I finished this week's blog post.

This took me a long time.

About 3 hours ago, I was sure it made sense. Then I kept working. I hope it still makes sense LOL.

https://terikanefield.com/wheres-the-beef-trumps-manhattan-criminal-case-and-some-mind-bending-legal-puzzles/

I discuss the criminal liability for behaving like a gold-plated bucket of slime and offer a few mind-bending legal puzzles.

It's super fun, sort of.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I am almost finished with this week's blog post.

Meanwhile, my 3-year old neice (grand niece? what do I call my niece's daughter?) taught me to play hide and seek.

Here's how:

💠 I tell her where I'll hide.
💠She closes her eyes and counts to 10.
💠When she reaches 10, she opens her eyes and looks for me.
💠It does't take long to find me.
💠Then we laugh.

I suspect I am supposed to tell her where I will hide so she doesn't feel scared when she opens her eyes and doesn't see me.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@meredithw I thought object permanence had to do with it.

I called it a sophisticated game of peek-a-boo.

Teri_Kanefield, to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

From the sound of the ferocious and alarmed barking, you'd think the house was on fire.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I just learned that Jed Shugerman wrote a piece for the New York Times evaluating Bragg's case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/23/opinion/bragg-trump-trial.html

Edited: I have now read it, thanks Joel.
As I have done, Jed leaves open the possibility that the prosecution may develop the case better.

@joelman in the comments offered a gift link. Thanks again.

My weekend blog post should help anyone with questions.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@ZhiZhu

Kuo seems to be saying that the crime is unreported campaign contributions, but that isn't what the prosecution says they are using as their predicate crime.

They are using New York election law.

This would make sense if Bragg and his team announced that the predicate crimes are campaign finance violations. There would still be issues, but that's not what they say they are doing.

Kuo is also glossing over sticky facts.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited )
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

Thanks everyone who offered a link.

Since Jed published this, the prosecution said the predicate crime is the NY election law.

Jed explains what I've been trying to tell people: It would make sense for the predicate crime to be the election finance violation, but that is not what they say they are going to do. Also that is not election interference.

If you're confused it's because the prosecution hasn't offered a clear theory.

We can try to find one, but we shouldn't have to.

Teri_Kanefield, (edited ) to random
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

If you read my weekend blog post, you know that I've been pointing out that the predicate crime in the Trump trial is not clear.

(For what I mean, see my weekend blog post).

Here is what the Washington Post reported.

See screenshots #1 and #2.

Here is the law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ELN/17-152?utm_medium=email&wpisrc=nl-nationalpopup&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=wp_the_trump_trials

To be clear: I have no idea how this trial will turn out. I cannot substitute my judgment for the jury because I am not seeing what they are seeing.

1/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

I am adding this to the thread:
https://mastodon.social/

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@PJ_Evans @kkeller

Paying off Daniels is not a crime. Hiding the fact that he paid off Daniels is not a crime.

There is no point proving that someone has a motive to do something that isn't a crime.

I won't respond any more except to say that your confusion is not your fault.

The prosecution says, "We will prove that Trump has a motive to hide the payments." Everyone says "the prosecution has a strong case!"

Actually there is no case without a crime.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@LexiGirl

That comment would never come in as evidence of anything for good reason.

I can be complicit in ruining the dinner, and I may have conspired to ruin the dinner, and I may have a powerful motive to ruin the dinner, but for any of that to be a crime, ruining the dinner has to be a criminal act, which means it has to violate a criminal statute.

There is a possible crime: campaign finance law, but this case is being presented as election interference, not an FECA violation.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@RuamiGrey Kt

If Trump and others conspired to falasify business records in case the FEC came around (which is not what the prosecution is alleging) it might be a state law violation, but not election interference.

Because that is not what the prosecution is alleging. If they pivot and that as the crime, there are also problems with that, which we can talk about if they pivot to that.

The reason we are all struggling is because the prosecution has not offered a clear theory of the case.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@FerdiMagellan It doesn't matter. Neither are crimes Neither are "election interference."

Paying enough and not reporting it may be an FECA violation, but those generally results in fines and have a high mens rea.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin Right. Catch and kill is not a crime. It is also not fraud. Catch and kill doesn't meet those elements.

It's also common practice, akin to a nondisclosure agreement.

The thing about criminal law is that people have to be on notice. You can't come up with a new theory to criminalize behavior and then charge someone with the crime. We even have a Constitutional protection against that.

So if something is common practice and has never been criminalized, you see the problem.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin

A few lawyers I know personally (not on social media) are afraid that this was in fact blatantly political.

I really doubt it. These prosecutors know that you can't invent a new crime and charge someone with it. It's the very definition of unconstitutional selective prosecution.

My point is that the reason people are working so hard to construct the prosecution's theory of the case is that the prosecution has not made it clear.

Presumably they will.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin Adding: Obviously a tort cannot be used as the predicate crime.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@Elsehere That is not a legal argument. FECA is a different law. Moreover, because of the elevated mens rea requirement, FECA violations mostly results in a fine and is not "election interference." This isn't what the prosecution is putting forward.

The reason everyone is working so hard to come up with a legal argument is because the proseuction has not made one clear.

Presumably they will.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin

Jed and others think it's because there would be no decreased revenue to New York.

He would have taken the same deduction no matter what he called it.

They also point out that the misdemeanor requires fraud and fraud requires decreased money to someone, and that wouldn't have happened here. In other words, it may not even be a misdemanor.

Even if the tax law is the underlying crime, why is the case being called election interference?

Hassan (election lawyer) is annoyed by that.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin reimbursing a lawyer's expenses is deductable, right?

Wouldn't, therefore, any crime be Cohen's?

adding: My main point is this. It is unheard of in a criminal case for people to be trying to figure out what the crime is. That should be clear and it isn't.

It is entirely on the prosecution to name the crime and show how the defendant's behavior meets the elements of the crime.

No guesswork allowed.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@lesblazemore @dsurkin

It isn't annoying at all. Just remember that judges don't always get things right.

That is why appellate lawyers have jobs.

Juries also don't always get things right, but we're stuck with their findings. But when judges get the law wrong, appeals can succeed.

Also if juries get it wrong relying on bad instructions from the judge, appeals can succeed.

In other words, none of this is a prediction of how it will all come out.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@lesblazemore @dsurkin

One lawyer who I won't name told me privately that he thinks Bragg brought the case cynically believing he could fool the judge and jury with these convolusions.

This is someone who agrees with Jed Shugerman's take.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@lesblazemore @dsurkin

It occurs to me that the fraud part of the filing only get us to the 1st part of the 2nd element.

The elements are:

(1) The person makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise
(2) with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime.

There must be an intent to defraud (and keeping information from the public is not legal fraud) that includes a predicate crime.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin @lesblazemore

Me too. I'm putting it into my weekend blog post. I'll have it ready tomorrow.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin @lesblazemore

@dsurkin Was it illegal to gross up the payment to Cohen to cover his taxes? (The Trump Org doubled what they owed him to cover his taxes.)

My gut says it isn't illegal unless Cohen failed to report it correctly, but I don't even do my own taxes (my husband has an MBA and does them).

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin So if Cohen sent an invoice for "legal services" and Trump paid the bill and recorded it as "legal services" how did Trump commit tax fraud?

Assuming that Trump had nothing to do with the creating of the invoice or what the invoice would be called.

Assume also that Cohen called it 'legal services' when he fixed problems for Trump.

Also these are internal records. Cohen is not an employee. He presents a bill for services and the company pays.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin Adding: It's interesting, but beside the point. The prosecution has not alleged tax fraud. They alleged a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the election. They are calling it election fraud.

I read the opening arguments, and they mentioned election fraud, and a conspiracy to interfere with the election.

In one of the motions they mentioned tax fraud as a possibility, but the possibility was helping Cohen commit tax fraud and the evidence would be Cohen's returns.

Teri_Kanefield,
@Teri_Kanefield@mastodon.social avatar

@dsurkin You read the blog post? I ended up deleting a quotation from one of their filings that might help (but I don't think so).

I try to find it for you.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tacticalgear
  • magazineikmin
  • Youngstown
  • khanakhh
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • InstantRegret
  • everett
  • mdbf
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • GTA5RPClips
  • ethstaker
  • osvaldo12
  • Durango
  • provamag3
  • normalnudes
  • tester
  • anitta
  • megavids
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •