put them back, that would be sufficient intent he was looking through the boxes and perhaps keeping some of the documents. another bing thing was the sentencing of oath keeper founder stuart rhodes. help us nonlawyers understand here. why wouldn t trump also be guilty of seditious conspiracy if stewart rhodes was just convicted and given a sentence. this is something jack smith and some of the others are looking into, not just was did he conspire with others to commit to a use of force and violence to interfere with the execution of u.s. law, that u.s. law being counting the electoral college ballots on january 6th, that s part of it. i don t know that jc smith will come up with enough. there are other relevant crimes such as fraud on the united states, false statements, et
Most lawyers and law students understand that attorneys often do not have a generalized expertise. Although law school and the bar exam cover important
i put this question to two of our legal experts who are here with us today. both were veteran prosecutors who have seen this both from a federal and a state perspective. can either of you walk through us walk us nonlawyers through this part of these charges you want me to take a crack you go ahead. okay, the first thing to note is that the statute in new york that says you can bump this up to a felony requires that you have an intent to commit some other crime. you don t actually have to commit that crime. so that s why you wouldn t necessarily need to charge it and that s something alvin bragg said also if one of the crimes you re thinking could be used and then that s not something you could charge in state court anyway this goes to the question in the last segment where he said isn t
sometimes when there is an indictment, prosecutors write it in such a way that it is meant for a lay audience, it feels it at least goes out of its way to put into context the charges so people understand the overall criminal scheme that is being alleged, and that tells it in a way that helps people contextualize it and understand it, as opposed to a dry recitation of the statutes and the evidence in a way that doesn t necessarily speak to nonlawyers does the d.a. s office have a pattern around those sorts of things do they use speaking indictments? does the d.a. s office in your mind have a standard to meet in terms of how much this will make sense to the nonlawyers among us or how much it will be a technical document absolutely. specially on a complex case like this, complex in that there are 30 counts. i understand mr. bragg will be giving a press conference at about 3:30 so what a perfect way to give a
and then he will ask for an adjustment for motions or to judge will say will you be filing motions and give an adjourn date and the people of new york state, the people then the prosecution, the date will be set. there will be a date for the prosecution to respond to those motions and then the date will be set for the decision on those motions. that s the regular procedure for every other supreme court arraignment in new york. i expect it to be the same the wild card will be what will be coming out of the mouth of the attorneys on the side of the defense. one of the things, nonlawyers who have had to become amateur lawyers to follow the various scandals of the trump administration, while the former president was in office and there were so many court cases associated with his associates, one of the things we came to appreciate was the idea of a speaking indictment.