from the case, so if i was advising the legal team i would say file a rule 41g emotion under the federal rules of criminal procedure to return the property and then you can duke out these legal battles right now. laura: and also a special master, right, david, would also be helpful here in order to act on these objections that they are going to have over the release of some of these documents in the redaction. there was no motion filed to call for a special master in this case, which look, it s been a while since i did this law, but that would be one of the first things i would ask for. i agree 100%. they say that they put a tape team in place, clearly a tape team and effective doors and appropriate, still part of the same doj and same team that has the same agenda. and should be a master appointee. but you started out this piece
their experiences during deliberations with other jurors. and that has prompted maxwell s legal team to seek a new trial. katie phang is back with us. katie, do maxwell s lawyers have a case here? they have a very, very high burden to be able to convince a judge to grant a motion for a new trial. the federal rules of criminal procedure are clear. in order to get a new trial, it is only if the interest of justice require that to happen. and i know that sounds very vague and candidly, there is no definition within the actual rule of procedure as to whether it qualifies for that. but let s look at the law. the law says if a juror intentionally is dishonest or misleading, that can be a basis for a new trial. but the judges ordered in this case for the parties to brief the issue, not actually bring the jurors back for questioning, allow them to file legal briefed by january 19th in order to determine if an evidentiary
it s not a trial. if you were in charge of asking for rules for this vote, what would be your priority? i come out of a system which rules are set, remain set, federal rules of evidence, federal rules of criminal procedure, they don t change based on who the trial judge is or which party controls congress or the white house. what i d like to see are a set of rules that permit a full and fair hearing, we hear from the witnesses, see documents. i would like, craig, and this may be pretty unrealistic, a set of rules that would remain regardless of who is in power in congress and regardless of who controls the white house. if it s fair to hear from the witnesses under these set of circumstances with a democratic house and democratic president, why wouldn t it be fair to do the same thing with a republican house and a democratic president. what do you make of this argument that we heard from senator mcconnell last hour, that the primary reason democrats want to call witnesses now is bec