HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Editorials & Other Articles (Forum) » COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Here...

Mon Jul 23, 2018, 09:09 PM

 

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Here's a discussion on how Mueller could use this against Trump

Interesting. Some say it can be useful & some say no.
I am trying to understand how/if it would work

Just posting this for anyone wanting to dig further into it.
Thanks!

Here's the Viewpoint




Here's the opposing viewpoint



Here's the Twitter Link to the discussion:
https://mobile.twitter.com/PuestoLoco/status/1021434274153664512

2 replies, 1073 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 2 replies Author Time Post
Reply COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL Here's a discussion on how Mueller could use this against Trump (Original post)
Wwcd Jul 2018 OP
marylandblue Jul 2018 #1
The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2018 #2

Response to Wwcd (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2018, 09:19 PM

1. The opposing view is correct, you can't use collateral estoppel to convict Trump

For example, in the Teapot Dome scandal, Interior Secretary Albert Fall was convicted of accepting a bribe from Edward Doheny, but Doheny was acquitted of paying the bribe. Different juries, different determinations of fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wwcd (Original post)

Mon Jul 23, 2018, 09:29 PM

2. The original tweet is incorrect.

Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) and the related doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) can't be used offensively in a second action against a non-party to the first action unless that non-party was in privity with a party to that action. "Privity" exists only when the first action provided substantial protection of the rights and interests of the non-party - when the nonparty had notice and opportunity to be heard, and his interests were adequately protected by an actual party or representative in the first action.

So, if there are facts adduced at Manafort's trial establishing that he conspired with Trump regarding Russian interference with the election, those facts could be used against Trump at a subsequent trial only if Trump's interests were adequately represented at Manafort's trial, and I really don't see how that could or would happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread