The law firm of choice for internationally focused companies

+263 242 744 677

admin@tsazim.com

4 Gunhill Avenue,

Harare, Zimbabwe

Category: News Feeds

Category Added in a WPeMatico Campaign

Tell ‘Em How You Really Feel, Trump — See Also

AI, Deepfakes, And Litigation: It’s Not Always What It Seems – Above the Law

A
willingness
to
adapt
to
the
changing
times
is
essential
in
today’s
rapidly
evolving
technology-driven
environment.
This
is
all
the
more
important
as
artificial
intelligence
(AI
)
advances
occur
at
an
exponential
rate,
forcing
our
courts
into
uncharted
territory
rife
with
AI-altered
evidence
like
deepfake
videos.

For
example,
in
a
recent
case
in
the
state
of
Washington,
a
King
County
Superior
Court
judge

ruled
on
the
admissibility
of
AI-enhanced
video

in
a
triple
murder
prosecution.
The
defense
sought
to
enter
into
evidence
a
cellphone
video
that
had
been
enhanced
using
AI
technology.

Judge
Leroy
McCullough
expressed
concern
about
the
lack
of
transparency
regarding
the
AI
editing
tool’s
algorithms
before
precluding
the
admission
of
the
altered
video.
He
determined
that
the
“admission
of
this
AI-enhanced
evidence
would
lead
to
a
confusion
of
the
issues
and
a
muddling
of
eyewitness
testimony,
and
could
lead
to
a
time-consuming
trial
within
a
trial
about
the
non-peer-reviewable
process
used
by
the
AI
mode.”

That
case
is
but
one
example
of
the
emerging
dilemma
facing
our
trial
courts.
Determining
the
admissibility
of
videos
created
using
AI
tools
presents
a
challenge
even
for
the
most
technology-adept
judges,
of
which
there
are
relatively
few.
Grappling
with
these
issues
has
been
all
the
more
problematic
in
the
absence
of
existing
guidance
or
updated
evidentiary
rules.
Fortunately,
help
is
on
the
way
in
the
form
of
ethics
guidance
and
proposed
evidentiary
rule
amendments.

In
a
recent
report
issued
by
the
New
York
State
Bar
Association’s
Task
Force
on
Artificial
Intelligence
on
April
6,
the
issue
of
AI-created
evidence
and
current
efforts
to
address
it
were
discussed.
The
lengthy
91-page
Report
and
Recommendations
of
the
New
York
State
Bar
Association
Task
Force
on
Artificial
Intelligence,

addressed
a
wide
range
of
issues,
including:
1)
the
evolution
of
AI
and
generative
AI,
2)
its
risks
and
benefits,
3)
how
it
is
impacting
society
and
the
practice
of
law,
and
4)
ethics
guidelines
and
recommendations
for
lawyers
who
use
these
tools.

One
area
of
focus
was
on
the
impact
of
AI-created
deepfake
evidence
on
trials.
The
task
force
acknowledged
the
challenge
presented
by
synthetic
evidence,
explaining
that
“(d)eciding
issues
of
relevance,
reliability,
admissibility
and
authenticity
may
still
not
prevent
deepfake
evidence
from
being
presented
in
court
and
to
a
jury.”

According
to
the
task
force,
the
threat
of
AI-created
deepfake
evidence
is
significant
and
may
impact
the
administration
of
justice
in
ways
never
before
seen.
As
generative
AI
tools
advance,
their
output
is
increasingly
sophisticated
and
deceptive,
making
it
incredibly
difficult
for
triers
of
fact
to
“determine
truth
from
lies
as
they
confront
deepfakes.”
Efforts
are
underway
on
both
a
national
and
state
level
to
address
these
concerns.

First,
the Advisory
Committee
for
the
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence
is
considering
a
proposal
by
former
U.S.
District
Judge
Paul
Grimm
and
Dr.
Maura
R.
Grossman
of
the
University
of
Waterloo.
Their
suggestion
is
to
revise
the 
Rule
901(b)(9)
standard
for
admissible
evidence
from
“accurate”
to
“reliable.”

The
new
rule
would
read
as
follows
(additions
in
bold):

(A)
evidence
describing
it
and
showing
that
it
produces
an
accurate

a
valid
and


reliable

result;
and

 
(B)
if
the
proponent
concedes
that
the
item
was
generated
by
artificial


intelligence,
additional
evidence
that:


 
 
 
(i)
describes
the
software
or
program
that
was
used;
and


 
 
 
(ii)
shows
that
it
produced
valid
and
reliable
results
in
this
instance.

The
advisory
committee
is
also
recommending
the
addition
of
a
new
rule,
901(c) 
to
address
the
threat
posed
by
deepfakes:

901(c)
Potentially
Fabricated
or
Altered
Electronic
Evidence.
If
a
party
challenging
the
authenticity
of
computer-generated
or
other
electronic
evidence
demonstrates
to
the
court
that
it
is
more
likely
than
not
either
fabricated,
or
altered
in
whole
or
in
part,
the
evidence
is
admissible
only
if
the
proponent
demonstrates
that
its
probative
value
outweighs
its
prejudicial
effect
on
the
party
challenging
the
evidence.

Similarly,
in
New
York,
 amendments
to
the
Criminal
Procedure
Law
and
CPLR
have
been
proposed
by
New
York
State
Assemblyman
Clyde
Vanel,
who
has
introduced
bill
A
8110,
which
amends
the
Criminal
Procedure
Law
and
the
Civil
Practice
Law
and
Rules
regarding
the
admissibility
of
evidence
created
or
processed
by
artificial
intelligence.

He
suggests
distinguishing
between
evidence
“created”
by
AI
when
it
produces
new
information
from
existing
information
and
evidence
“processed”
by
AI
when
it
produces
a
conclusion
based
on
existing
information.

He
posits
that
evidence
“created”
by
AI
would
not
be
admissible
absent
independent
evidence
that
“establishes
the
reliability
and
accuracy
of
the
AI
used
to
create
the
evidence.”
Evidence
“processed”
by
AI
would
require
that
the
reliability
and
accuracy
of
the
AI
used
be
established
prior
to
admission
of
the
AI
output
into
evidence.

Legislative
changes
aside,
there
are
other
ways
to
adapt
to
the
changes
wrought
by
AI.
Now,
more
than
ever,
technology
competence
requires
embracing
and
learning
about
this
rapidly
advancing
technology
and
its
impact
on
the
practice
of
law
at
all
levels
of
the
profession,
from
lawyers
and
law
students
to
judges
and
regulators.
This
includes
understanding
how
existing
laws
and
regulations
apply,
and
whether
new
ones
are
needed
to
address
emerging
issues
that
have
the
potential
to
reduce
the
effectiveness
of
the
judicial
process.

The
evolving
landscape
of
AI
presents
both
opportunities
and
challenges
for
the
legal
system.
While
AI-powered
tools
can
enhance
efficiency
and
analysis,
AI-created
evidence
like
deepfakes
poses
a
significant
threat
to
the
truth-finding
process.

The
efforts
underway,
from
proposed
rule
changes
to
increased
education,
demonstrate
a
proactive
approach
to
addressing
these
concerns.
As
AI
continues
to
advance,
a
multipronged
strategy
that
combines
legal
reforms,
technological
literacy
within
the
legal
profession,
and
a
commitment
to
continuous
learning
is
needed
to
ensure
a
fair
and
just
legal
system
in
the
age
of
artificial
intelligence.





Nicole
Black



is
a
Rochester,
New
York
attorney
and
Director
of
Business
and
Community
Relations
at




MyCase
,
web-based
law
practice
management
software.
She’s
been




blogging



since
2005,
has
written
a




weekly
column



for
the
Daily
Record
since
2007,
is
the
author
of




Cloud
Computing
for
Lawyers
,
co-authors




Social
Media
for
Lawyers:
the
Next
Frontier
,
and
co-authors




Criminal
Law
in
New
York
.
She’s
easily
distracted
by
the
potential
of
bright
and
shiny
tech
gadgets,
along
with
good
food
and
wine.
You
can
follow
her
on
Twitter
at




@nikiblack



and
she
can
be
reached
at




niki.black@mycase.com
.

Big Thanks To Our Advertisers! – Above the Law




<br /> Big<br /> Thanks<br /> To<br /> Our<br /> Advertisers!<br /> –<br /> Above<br /> the<br /> Law


























We’d
like
to
express
gratitude
to
our
fantastic
sponsors
here
at
Above
the
Law:

If
you’re
interested
in
advertising
on
Above
the
Law
or
any
other
site
in
the
Breaking
Media
network,
please download
our
media
kits
 or email
advertising
.

The DOJ Isn’t The Only One Keeping Apple In Check – Above the Law

(Photo
by
Smith
Collection/Gado/Getty
Images)

As
Americans,
it’s
easy
to
limit
our
legal
horizon
to
what’s
going
on
in
our
country

hard
enough
to
keep
up
with
everything
as
is!
But
there
are
times
when
being
aware
of
legal
happenings
elsewhere
can
help
you
understand
the
changes
happening
on
the
home
turf.
Even
if
we
don’t
have
the
same
privacy
standards
as
Europeans,
the
GDPR
scramble
of
2018
shows
the
importance
of
foreign
laws
forcing
American
companies
to
kick
into
gear.

Another
foreign
legal
system
that
might
be
worth
keeping
an
eye
on?
Japan.
And
this
goes
double
if
you’re
working
in
Apple’s
antitrust
department.
From

Pymnts
:

Japan
is
ramping
up
its
antitrust
regulations
in
a
bid
to
crack
down
on
monopolistic
practices
among
major
corporations,
taking
cues
from
recent
actions
by
the
European
Commission.
Following
the
EU’s
mandate
forcing
Apple
to
allow
third-party
app
stores
on
its
iOS
platform,
Japan
is
now
targeting
the
tech
giant,
signaling
a
broader
crackdown
on
possible
anticompetitive
behavior.

Currently,
Japanese
law
penalizes
companies
found
guilty
of
monopolistic
practices
with
fines
up
to
6%
of
their
sales.
However,
policymakers
are
proposing
a
significant
increase
in
penalties,
with
the
new
framework
suggesting
fines
of
20%
of
sales
for
initial
violations,
and
reaching
up
to
30%
for
repeated
non-compliance.

20%
to
30% 
fines
are
a
quick
way
to
get
companies
in
compliance
with
whatever
you’re
demanding.
If
Japan’s
effort
in
fighting
anticompetitive
players
is
successful,
we
may
see
the
advent
of
new
players
in
the
tech
sphere,
both
abroad
and
home.


Earlier:


DOJ
Hits
Apple
With
Antitrust
Lawsuit



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Yelling At The Judge? Bold Strategy From The Prosecution – Above the Law

Yes
this
is
about
the
YSL
trial.
With
all
of
the
hits
coming
out
of
this
trial,
we
might
not
even
need
Barter
7.
For
those
behind,
the
shenanigans
include:

  • Months
    spent
    just
    on
    jury
    selection
  • Attorneys
    being
    ordered
    to
    buy
    people
    lunch
  • $10
    fines
    per
    cell
    phone
    ring
  • The
    choice
    between
    homework
    assignments
    or
    jail
  • An
    apparent
    in-court
    drug
    deal
  • Assaulting
    an
    officer

And
all
that
is

just
from
the
4/20
article
last
year
!
Since
then,
lawyer
getting
in
trouble
has
been
a
consistent
theme

Nicole
Fegan
faced
some
legal
trouble

over
giving
a
non-client
advice

and
Fani
Willis

the
lead
prosecutor
on
the
case
— 

has
been
all
over
the
news
.
Today’s
entertainment
comes
from
a
district
attorney
from
her
office,
Adriane
Love.
Her
shouting
match
with
a
judge
is
a
good
example
of
what
not
to
do
in
court:

For
any
aspiring
trial
attorneys,
quick
tip:
if
you’re
yelling
at
a
judge
and
they
ask
you
to
take
a
seat,
take
a
seat.



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.

Tech Innovation with LLMs Producing More Secure and Reliable Gen AI Results


By
Serena
Wellen
|
Senior
Director
of
Product
Management,
LexisNexis

The
introduction
of
Generative
Artificial
Intelligence
(Gen
AI)
tools
specifically
designed
for
the
legal
profession
is
stirring
animated
conversations
about
the
potential
for
these
tools
to
transform
the
way
that
law
is
practiced,
but
perhaps
less
understood
is
how
the
technology
making
these
tools
possible
is
getting
better
and
more
reliable. 

Gen
AI
describes
Large
Language
Models
(LLMs)
that
are
designed
to
create
new
content
in
the
form
of
images,
text,
audio
and
more.
This
is
the
category
of
AI
from
which
emerged
ChatGPT,
the
model


launched
in
November
2022
 that
brought
Gen
AI
into
the
cultural
mainstream. 

The
initial
model,
GPT-2,
was
built
on
1.5
billion
parameters
of
data
inputs.
The
subsequent
model,
GPT-3,
was
built
on
175
billion
parameters
and
GPT-4
may
have
been
built
on
an
astonishing
170
trillion
parameters.
But
as
staggering
as
this
rapid
growth
is,
the
truth
is
that
LLMs
may
have
peaked
in
size.
Indeed,


OpenAI’s
Sam
Altman
has
indicated
 that
“the
age
of
giant
AI
models
is
already
over”
and
that
future
versions
will
improve
in
different
ways. 

Of
course,
the
early-stage
versions
of
these
LLMs
produced
some
results
that
amazed
legal
professionals
with
their


possibilities
,
and
other
results
that
alarmed
them
because
of
the
risks.
But
over
the
course
of
the
past
year,
there
has
been
tremendous
innovation
in
LLM
technology
that
is
clearly
driving
Gen
AI
in
the
right
direction. 

For
one
thing,
the
gap
between
private
models
(e.g.,
those
from
OpenAI,
Google,
Anthropic,
Microsoft,
etc.)
and


open
source
models

(e.g.,
Llama,
Falcon,
Mistral,
etc.)
is
narrowing.
This
is
important
because
the
open
source
ecosystem
is
driving
a
huge
amount
of
innovation,
fueled
by
easier
access
to
the
models
themselves,
easier
availability
of
training
data
sets
for
everyone,
lower
costs,
and
the
worldwide
sharing
of
research
to
guide
further
development. 

Second,
prompt
engineering
has
evolved
to
the
point
where
it
is
much
more
akin
to
traditional
software
engineering.
In
the
early
days
of
Gen
AI,
the
data
science
behind
creating
the
back-end
prompts
to
guide
the
models
was
untested,
and
few
software
engineers
had
the
requisite
training
or
experience.
We
now
have
a
variety
of
tools

such
as
LangChain
and
PromptFlow

that
are
very
similar
to
other
tools
and
templates
regularly
used
in
software
engineering,
making
it
easier
for
developers
to
create
Gen
AI
applications
at
scale. 

Third,
LLMs’
ability
to
reason
and
to
minimize
“hallucination”
has
become
quite
impressive
with
the
proper
techniques.
One
of
these
techniques
is
known
as
Retrieval
Augmented
Generation
(RAG).
The
RAG
model
is
an
LLM
prompt
cycle
that
accesses
information
external
to
the
model
to
improve
its
response
to
specific
queries,
rather
than
only
relying
upon
data
that
was
included
in
its
training
data.
ChatGPT,
for
example,
relies
solely
on
its
training
data:
information
extracted
from
the
open
web
(an
unknown
number
of
which
may
not
be
grounded
in
fact).
The
most
advanced
applications
of
the
RAG
approach,
such
as
how
we
use
RAG
within
our
Lexis+
AI
platform,
can
now
deliver
accurate
and
authoritative
answers
that
are
grounded
in
the
closed
universe
of
authoritative
content

in
our
case,
the
most
comprehensive
collection
of
case
law,
statutes
and
regulations
in
the
legal
industry. 

“With
the
right
model
training,
source
materials
and
integration,
RAG
is
poised
to
mitigate,
if
not
resolve,
some
of
generative
AI’s
most
troubling
issues,”


reported
Forbes
.  

Another
important
dimension
of
tech
innovation
with
LLMs
is
that
more
organizations
are
now
deploying
a
“multi-model”
approach
to
building
their
Gen
AI
solutions.
This
shift
away
from
placing
big
bets
on
a
single
LLM
is
enabling
developers
to
leverage
different
benefits
from
different
models,
creating
their
own
solutions
in
a
more
flexible
way
that
maximizes
functionalities
and
minimizes
risks. 

And
an
interesting
development
to
keep
your
eyes
on
in
the
year
ahead
is
the
potential
evolution
of
LLMs
with
something
called
Large
Agentic
Models
(LAMs).
LAMs
are
advanced
systems
that
can
perform
tasks
and
make
decisions
by
interfacing
with
other
human
users
or
other
automated
tools.
Unlike
traditional
AI
systems
that
respond
to
user
prompts,
LAMs
are
designed
to
understand
their
environment
and
take
actions
to
achieve
their
assigned
goals
without
direct
human
intervention,


according
to
TechTarget

But
perhaps
the
most
important
technology
innovation
with
LLMs
for
legal
professionals
is
that
data
security
and
privacy
safeguards
are
being
placed
front
and
center
with
the
newest
tools
in
development.
Secure
cloud
services
are
more
readily
available,
data
sanitation
and
anonymization
are
standard
in
training
models,
encryption
is
more
reliable
than
ever,
access
controls
are
vastly
improved,
and
there
are
sound
data
governance
protocols
around
the
retention
of
prompt
inputs
and
response
outputs. 

At
LexisNexis,
we
have
followed
a
product
development
plan
that
embraced
Gen
AI
technology
in
a
deliberate
manner
so
we
can
capture
the
upside
of
these
tools
developed
specifically
for
the
legal
domain,
while
mitigating
the
potential
risks
associated
with
the
first
generation
of
the
open
Web
Gen
AI
tools,
such
as
ChatGPT.  



Lexis+
AI

is
our
breakthrough
Gen
AI
platform
that
is
transforming
legal
work
by
providing
a
suite
of
legal
research,
drafting,
and
summarization
tools
that
delivers
on
the
potential
of
Gen
AI
technology.
Its
answers
are
grounded
in
the
world’s
largest
repository
of
accurate
and
exclusive
legal
content
from
LexisNexis
with
industry-leading
data
security
and
attention
to
privacy.
By
saving
time
with
Lexis+
AI
enabled
tasks,
legal
professionals
have
more
time
to
do
the
work
only
they
can
do.
In
fact,
our
customers
have
reported
time
savings
of
up
to
11
hours
per
week
using
Lexis+
AI. 

To
learn
more
or
to
request
a
free
trial
of
Lexis+
AI,
please
go
to


www.lexisnexis.com/ai

Trump Lawyers: RTs Aren’t Endorsements, So, No Contempt, Your Honor! – Above the Law

They
haven’t
even
picked
a
jury
yet
for
his
New
York
criminal
case,
and
Donald
Trump
is
doing
his
damnedest
to
get
himself

held
in
contempt
.

His
in-court
antics

falling
asleep,

playing
on
his
phone
,

refusing
to
stand

and
face
the
potential
jurors,

being
fed
a
constant
stream
of
happy
news
by
a
young
woman
toting
a
wireless
printer


might
do
it
for
a
normal
defendant.
But
the
former
president’s
extrajudicial
statements
have
clearly

violated
the
gag
order

imposed
by
the
court,
forcing
his
lawyers
to
make
ever
more
ridiculous
claims
to
defend
him,
even
before
next
week’s
contempt
hearing.

The

gag
order

imposed
by
Justice
Juan
Merchan
on
March
26
barred
the
defendant
from
“making
or
directing
others
to
make
public
statements”
regarding
witnesses,
line
prosecutors,
court
staff,
and
jurors,
along
with
family
members
of
the
above
parties.
After
Trump
pivoted
to
attacking
Justice
Merchan’s
daughter,
it
was
later

expanded

to
include
family
members
of
the
judge
and
District
Attorney
Alvin
Bragg.

Since
then,
Trump
has
honored
the
edict

more
in
the
breach

than
in
the
observance.
He called
Michael
Cohen
a
“disgraced
attorney
and
felon”
who
has
been
“prosecuted
for
LYING,”
and

quoted

Michael
Avenatti

also
a
disgraced
attorney
and
felon!

calling
Cohen
and
Stormy
Daniels
sleazebags.
In
the
main,
however,
his
strategy
has
been
to
link
to
or
screenshot
other
people
saying
things
which
he
himself
would
be
barred
from
saying
under
the
gag
order.

Link to NY Post article saying "A serial perjurer will try to prove an old misdemeanor against Trump in an embarrassment for the New York legal system"

Apparently
emboldened
by
the
court’s
lackadaisical
response
to
his
prior
violations,
Trump

went
even
further

on
Wednesday,
simply
slapping
quotation
marks
around
an
attack
on
the
jury
and
attributing
it
to
Jesse
Watters,
the
simpering
douchebag
who
took
over
Tucker
Carlson’s
slot
after
proving
to
Fox’s
bosses
that
he
was
equally
troll-y,
but
insufficiently
influential
to
spark
a
major
lawsuit.

Trump social media post: “They are catching undercover Liberal Activists lying to the Judge in order to get on the Trump Jury,” Jesse Watters

There
is
no
universe
in
which
this
isn’t
a
direct
violation
of
the
prohibition
on
public
statements
about
prospective
jurors.
And,
as
if
to
highlight
the
dangers
from
Trump’s
rhetoric,
the
morning
started
with
one
of
the
jurors
seated
yesterday
requesting
to
be
excused
after
being
immediately
doxxed
thanks
to
the
media’s
detailed
reporting
of
her
biographical
details.
(Since
then
the
media
has
decided
that
it’s
not
strictly
necessary
to
report
the
eye
color,
maiden
name,
and
date
of
last
menstrual
period
for
each
individual
juror.)

The
prosecutors
argued
that
Trump
had
violated
the
gag
order
seven
times
since
they’d
moved
for
a
hearing
on
the
matter.

“It’s
ridiculous
and
it
has
to
stop,”
Assistant
District
Attorney
Chris
Conroy
complained,
adding
that
the
reference
to
jurors
was
“the
most
disturbing
post,
especially
in
light
of
this
morning.”

Trump’s
lawyer
Emil
Bove,
who
spent
a
decade
in
the
US
Attorney’s
Office
in
the
Southern
District
of
New
York
and
now
pretends
to
have
fallen
off
the
turnip
truck
yesterday,
insisted
that
the
order
was
somehow
ambiguous
when
it
came
to
Trump
reposting
content
generated
by
others.

“President
Trump’s
responses
are
political
in
nature.
They’re
intended
to
defend
against
what
Mr.
Cohen
is
saying…
the
gag
order
didn’t
prohibit
responding
to
political
attacks,”
Bove
said,
according
to
the

Daily
Beast
.
“One
other
thing.
Only
recently

has
DA
taken
the
position
that
reposting
statements
by
others
violates
the
gag
order.”

Bove
even
went
so
far
as
to
credit
his
client
with
“bring[ing]
to
light
some
of
the
ambiguities
in
the
order.”

You
know

for
the
sake
of
fleshing
out
the
issues!

This
was
marginally
less
stupid
than
Tuesday
when
Todd
Blanche,
Trump’s
lead
attorney,

invented

a
“responding
to
salacious,
repeated
vehement
attacks
by
these
witnesses”
exception
to
the
order.
But
it
will
be
interesting
to
see
these
guys
put
that
in
writing
when
they
brief
the
contempt
issue
Friday.

Maybe
they
can
get
their
client
to
help
with
the
drafting.
He
seems

super
familiar

with
New
York
criminal
procedure.

I thought STRIKES were supposed to be “unlimited” when we were picking our jury? I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country. Don’t worry, we have the First Worst also, as the Witch Hunt continues! ELECTION INTERFERENCE!


People
v.
Trump
 [Case
Documents
via
Just
Security]





Liz
Dye
 lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.

Donald Trump, Not A Stand Up Guy (In The Courtroom At Least) – Above the Law

(Photographer:
Jabin
Botsford/The
Washington
Post/Bloomberg
via
Getty
Images)

By
all
accounts,
Donald
Trump
has
always
been
a
nightmare
of
a
client.
But
while
he
used
to
just

stiff
his
attorneys
after
the
fact
,
these
days
he’s
pushing
attorneys
to
take

increasingly
stupid
and
borderline
(and
potentially
not-so-borderline)
contemptuous
moves
.
Like
when

Christina
Bobb
represented
to
federal
law
enforcement

that
Trump
had
returned
all
the
classified
documents
at
Mar-a-Lago
in
lieu
of
actually
searching
the
loo.
She’s
running

“election
integrity”
for
the
RNC

these
days
so
they’ve
definitely
got
their
top
people
on
that
task.

The
former
president
put
his
attorneys
in
another
tight
spot
this
afternoon
when
the
jury
pool
entered
the
courtroom,
prompting
everyone
to
stand
and
face
the
people
performing
their
civic
duty.
Everyone
except…

Of
course
not.

Is
it
unwise?
Sure
it
betrays
contempt
for
the
whole
process,
which
could
end
up
costing
him
another
grand
or
so
that
he’ll
easily
raise
by
asking
some
laid
off
coal
miner
barely
making
his
mortgage
payments
to
fork
over
a
recurring
donation
to
the
billionaire
because
wokeness
or
something.

But
from
Trump’s
perspective,
what’s
to
be
gained
by
observing
basic
decorum?
Any
potential
juror
biased
against
Trump
doesn’t
care
whether
or
not
he
stands.
Any
potential
juror
in
the
MAGA
tank
isn’t
going
to
take
offense
and
probably
gets
off
on
the
idea
that
Trump
is
such
a
big
shot
that
he
views
all
the
jurors
as
peasants.

In
the
middle,
any
juror
just
taking
the
job
seriously
without
prejudice
is
going
to
vote
to
convict
because
to
the
extent
there
are
faults
in
the
hush
money
prosecution

and
there
are!)

none
of
them
will
be
in
the
hands
of
the
fact-finders
on
the
jury.
They’re
going
to
dutifully
note
that
he
made
these
payments
and
he
misrepresented
what
they
were
for
and
hand
that
back
to
the
judge.

None
of
it
makes
any
difference
to
Trump.
He
can
whip
up
a
petulant
show
of
how
much
you
disrespect
the
whole
affair
and
soak
up
“you
show
’em,
sir”
accolades
from
his
devotees.

Mariotti
says
“any
competent
lawyer”
would
tell
Trump
to
get
his
act
together
and
stand,
but
the
thing
is…
he
has
competent
lawyers
in
this
case
and
they
almost
certainly
have
told
him
all
this.
He
just
doesn’t
care.

And,
he
honestly
might
be
right
that
he
has
nothing
to
lose.


HeadshotJoe
Patrice
 is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of

Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer
.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a

Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search
.

Who Needs Sociology When Atlanta Prosecutors Can Just Make Up Causes Of Crime? – Above the Law

When
explaining
the
reasons
for
crime,
people
often
resort
to
explanations
that
center
free
will
and
personal
responsibility
as
the
culprits
(pun
intended).
However,
the
reality
of
why
people
commit
crimes
is
manifold.
Some
crimes
can
be
chalked
up
to
mistakes
like

insider
trading
or
copyright
infringement
.
There
are
even
some
intensely
studied
preventable
causes
of
crime
like

poverty
,

hunger
,
and

early
on-set
lead
exposure
.
As
an
aside,

you
should
probably
take
those
Lunchables
out
of
your
kid’s
lunch
.

Some
theories
on
crime’s
genesis
are
just
a
bit
too
far
out.
Forgive
me,
I
held
back
there.
Some
shit
is
just

stupid
.
Occasionally
that
blinding
stupidity
makes
it
all
the
way
to
the
courtroom,
and
for
that
we
have
who
else
to
thank
but
some
of
the
lawyers
involved
in
the
YSL
trial.

Are
you
shitting
me?
Are
we
seriously
to
believe
that
rap
lyrics
are
sufficient
enough
a
force
in
themselves
to
spontaneously
cause
murders?
When
did
this
happen?
Because
growing
up
I’ve
met
a
few
edgy
souls
that
have
listened
to

Dance
With
The
Devil

by
Immortal
Technique
and
if
that
song
isn’t
enough
to
“motivate
people
to
commit
violence”,
I
don’t
know
what
is.
Also,
why
does
rap
only
get
hit
with
causational
accusations
when
bad
shit
happens?
I
didn’t
see
Jay-Z
getting
any
applause
for
doing
his
part
on
helping
the
housing
market
in
2017
when
he
told
people
listening
to

The
Story
Of
OJ

to
invest
in
property.

If
I’ve
said
it
once
I’ve
said
it
a
thousand
times.
Relying
on
lyrics
from
a
genre
that
frequently
relies
on
hyperbole,
metaphor
and
just
making
shit
up
as
if
they
are
signed
confessions
is
an
insult
to
due
process
and
the
rule
of
law.

Earlier:

Desperate
For
Evidence,
Prosecutors
Will
Use
Young
Thug
Lyrics
In
Trial


I
Don’t
Think
People
Understand
How
Silly
It
Is
To
Use
Song
Lyrics
As
Evidence



Chris
Williams
became
a
social
media
manager
and
assistant
editor
for
Above
the
Law
in
June
2021.
Prior
to
joining
the
staff,
he
moonlighted
as
a
minor
Memelord™
in
the
Facebook
group Law
School
Memes
for
Edgy
T14s
.
 He
endured
Missouri
long
enough
to
graduate
from
Washington
University
in
St.
Louis
School
of
Law.
He
is
a
former
boatbuilder
who
cannot
swim, a
published
author
on
critical
race
theory,
philosophy,
and
humor
,
and
has
a
love
for
cycling
that
occasionally
annoys
his
peers.
You
can
reach
him
by
email
at cwilliams@abovethelaw.com and
by
tweet
at @WritesForRent.