Criminal law

Georgia defendant Kenneth Chesebro got a fast-track trial date; He may soon bemoan not being careful about what he wishes for Dennis Aftergot | verdict


On Thursday, the racketeering charges of Donald Trump and 18 others gathered pace in Fulton County. The accelerating developments go beyond simply having Trump’s fingerprints and photograph taken at the Fulton County Jail.

An unusually fast televised trial of at least one defendant in the Fulton County grand jury’s indictment of Donald Trump’s alleged scheme to overturn the 2020 state election appears imminent. Attorney Kenneth Chesebrough, who asked for a speedy trial, may soon regret it. . . as a convicted felon.

It started on Wednesday afternoon. The accused, Kenneth Chesebro He demanded a speedy trialAs is his right and the right of the public. Chesebro is the lawyer who apparently fabricated The whole “fake voters” scheme.

Under Georgia law, his request for a speedy trial means that must happen no later than November 6, 2023. On Thursday, Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis said: Quickly hop on board his request. Her quick suggestion of a start date of 23 October cut 10 days from the likely time for Chesebro to prepare.

She’s clearly eager to go.

Less than 90 minutes after Willis was introduced as Donald Trump’s attorney object to early trial and was informed that he would seek to separate or separate his case from Chesebro’s. Trump wants a delay.

Remarkably, within an hour, Judge Scott McAfee I accepted Suggested start date Willis. Judge McAfee commented on his order that:Georgia State v. Chesebro’, excluding Trump and the 17 other defendants from the case’s original suspension.

This indicates that it only applies to Chesebro. It also seems to be said that he might be tried alone, though this is not entirely clear.

Willis may make a motion to make it clear that she wants all members of the alleged criminal business to be tried together. Alternatively, it could ask to try a subset of them linked to the “fake voters” scheme.

Here are a few reasons why Chesebro is seeking a speedy trial and why Willis seems to want it more.

Chesibro may rightly see himself as less culpable than Trump, and even the lawyers Rudolph Giuliani or John Eastman, who advised Trump directly.

And it would have been easy for Chesebro and his lawyers to see that by demanding a speedy trial, Trump and others would move, with good odds of success, to cut themselves off from the Chesebro trial on the grounds that they needed more time to prepare.

Figuratively speaking, Chesebro knows that mold from a large cheese, if it gets close to a smaller slice, can contaminate it. He thinks it’s best to keep his distance.

A trial without Trump and others might help Chesebro, he reckons, by raising questions in the minds of jurors about why he was chosen.

Again, the prosecutor and the judge can make it clear that the jury should focus only on the defendant and the evidence before them. Nor should they concern themselves with criminal justice procedures with which the law does not bother them.

Chesebro may also have believed that Fanny Willis, like many prosecutors, filed the indictment without being 100% ready to prosecute this case. Prosecutors understand that there are almost always months to do further preparation before a jury is sworn in.

If this was Chesebro’s thinking, Willis quickly freed him of the idea.

It knows that a speedy trial of any accused is in the best interest of prosecutors. The proof is not like cheddar which gets better with age.

She also understands that as much as she may want to court Trump and others at the top of the chain of command, she is unlikely to have that luxury. So she should take the opportunity to do a simpler experiment.

The fact of a speedy trial can immediately expel less guilty witnesses who see an opportunity to get the best cooperation “deals”. The petitions accompanying the cooperation agreements pressure the number of defendants to try to move forward and expand the arsenal of evidence the prosecution has against senior officials.

For example, indictment It alleges that defendants David Schaefer, Kathleen Alston, and Sean Steele were “fake voters,” and that defendant Mike Roman is a Trump campaign official who allegedly helped organize the logistics of the “fake voters” scheme.

They may have direct or potential clients information to share about Chesebro. Indeed, the indictment alleges that Chesebro sent emails to Schaefer and Roman advising them on the procedures that the fake voters should follow in falsely declaring themselves official voters on December 14.

Furthermore, a simple trial involving one or a few defendants creates the possibility of early conviction. This could have a domino effect on the other defendants, who waited to see if they would plead guilty and cooperate.

One experience can provide Willis with many other advantages.

And here is an important one. Each accused hits the nineDefinitive challengesFor Juries – A defense attorney’s tool for excusing a juror, for example, who has four law enforcement relatives without explanation. With 19 defendants, that comes to 171 excused jurors without any stated reason!

Defense attorney teams can work together using peremptory appeals until they find one or more jurors that the attorneys are convinced will hang the jury by voting to acquit regardless of the strength of the evidence.

A single accused trial would also avoid the danger of a circus into which trials involving many accused could deteriorate. There will be no pre-trial legal requests coming from multiple sources or evidentiary objections in the trial arising from multiple directions. Such repeated objections to the direct testimony of a prosecution witness can unravel the account.

In a single-accused trial, too, only one attorney cross-examines each of these witnesses and punches holes in their testimony.

Ultimately, the holy grail for prosecutors is conviction. There, it is proof that the rules. Willis’s clear case against Chesebro is strong.

Consider these four buckets of proof.

Three Cheesebrooke Notes. on November 18, Chesebro wrote the first known book legal notice plot outline. The fraudulent voter rolls were intended to provide an excuse for Vice President Mike Pence, as the presiding officer of the joint session of Congress on January 6, to claim conflict and a basis for denying or delaying certification of President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Georgia indictment He keeps follow-up notes for Chesebro on December 6 and 9 explaining the procedures the bogus voters will have to follow. These memos were sent to the alleged conspirators and fake Republican voters in the contested states.

Email messages. According to the indictment, Chesebro sent several emails “outlining strategies to disrupt and delay the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.” In a December 13 email to Giuliani, Chesibro allegedly wrote that his “strategies… . . . were ‘Better to let electoral law run on its own terms“.”

A lawyer who writes that he does not want the law to work as written has to explain something. It is unlikely that Chesebro’s defense attorney will want him on the witness stand where he will be subject to cross-examination.

Witness testimony. Special Counsel Jack Smith appears to have compelling evidence, likely available to Willis, that on December 11, 2020, Chesebro suggested to an Arizona attorney that he needed to petition the Supreme Court to challenge the state’s election “as a pretext.”

D.C. grand jury on August 1st indictment Chesbro allegedly told the lawyer, Reportedly, Jack Willenczekwhich Giuliani heard “from a government official…. . . It “could appear”. traitor For the voters of Arizona to vote on Monday if there are no court proceedings pending…'”

In addition, according to Georgia indictmentOn December 12, 2020, Chesebro met with Wisconsin Republican Party Chairman Brian Chemming and discussed procedures for the December 14th fake voter meeting and casting of fraudulent ballots. It appears as if Ximing will be a trial witness for the prosecution. Giuliani allegedly joined the meeting by phone.

video. There is nothing better than good vision. On August 18, reports emerged of Video and photos It shows that Chesebro was not just a detached legal analyst, but was personally involved in the events of 6 January.

Video footage reportedly shows Chesebro that day with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones outside the Capitol on his grounds. Photographs linking Chesebro to the crime scene that day served as daggers in his defense at trial.

Even if Chesebro were to be tried alone, any conviction in an early trial would provide Willis with a powerful impetus in her broader case against Trump and the co-defendants.


Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button