Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Trump loses bid for Carroll mistrial after lawyer's literary fumble
EJ Carroll wrote a book called "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal." TFG's attorney questioned here about the book and the judge stepped in and told the idiot TFG attorney that this was satire based on Swift's "A Modest Proposal" Today TFG's attorney filed a motion for a mistrial based in part on the judge pointing out that the TFG attorney is an idiot.
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-e-jean-carroll-mistrial-tacopina-rcna82285?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma&taid=64504f065926cc0001778978&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter
Yet, one of the items on Tacopina's laundry list of unfairness stood out as especially absurd. It dealt with literature, a controversial subject in the book-banning GOP these days. And it provides a lesson about one work Republicans might want to keep on the shelves.
Tacopina pointed to an exchange with Carroll on cross-examination about a reference in her book to sending all men to Montana for retraining. When he pressed her, Carroll pointed out that it was satire, suggesting that Tacopina was an idiot if he didn't understand that. Then Kaplan interjected to note that Carroll's satire comes from Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," a satirical essay from the 18th century that "proposed" poor Irish parents sell their children as food.
In his failed mistrial letter, Trump's lawyer argued that it was inappropriate for the judge to chime in and provide this context. Tacopina's letter went further by actually going through the trouble of distinguishing between Carroll's and Swift's satires, observing that Carroll referred to men while Swift referred to children. The point, Tacopina wrote, is that it was inappropriate for the judge to get involved because it showed favoritism.
Of course, Tacopina ran the risk of Kaplan's interjecting when he touched on such an obvious point. Indeed, Carroll's 2019 book is titled "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal." The Swift reference is clear, and lawyers need to remember that the judge is always the smartest person in the room.
Kaplan didn't need to weigh in on the literary point, but his doing so doesn't create a mistrial.
Tacopina pointed to an exchange with Carroll on cross-examination about a reference in her book to sending all men to Montana for retraining. When he pressed her, Carroll pointed out that it was satire, suggesting that Tacopina was an idiot if he didn't understand that. Then Kaplan interjected to note that Carroll's satire comes from Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," a satirical essay from the 18th century that "proposed" poor Irish parents sell their children as food.
In his failed mistrial letter, Trump's lawyer argued that it was inappropriate for the judge to chime in and provide this context. Tacopina's letter went further by actually going through the trouble of distinguishing between Carroll's and Swift's satires, observing that Carroll referred to men while Swift referred to children. The point, Tacopina wrote, is that it was inappropriate for the judge to get involved because it showed favoritism.
Of course, Tacopina ran the risk of Kaplan's interjecting when he touched on such an obvious point. Indeed, Carroll's 2019 book is titled "What Do We Need Men For? A Modest Proposal." The Swift reference is clear, and lawyers need to remember that the judge is always the smartest person in the room.
Kaplan didn't need to weigh in on the literary point, but his doing so doesn't create a mistrial.
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
