And
the
award
for
stupidest
take
on
the
Trump
trial
that
didn’t
risk
anyone’s
life
(STTTDRAL)
goes
to
…
ALAN
DERSHOWITZ!
Come
on
down,
Professor!
“The
gag
order
is
unconstitutional.
You
cannot
prevent
a
defendant
from
attacking
the
witnesses,
from
attacking
the
judge’s
daughter,
if
the
judge’s
daughter
could
be
a
basis
for
disqualification!”
he
shouted
dyspeptically
on
Sean
Hannity’s
show.
This
would
probably
be
news
to
the
DC
Circuit,
which
ruled
in
December
that
prohibiting
a
criminal
defendant
from
“making
or
directing
others
to
make
public
statements
about
known
or
reasonably
foreseeable
witnesses
concerning
their
potential
participation
in
the
investigation
or
in
this
criminal
proceeding”
does not
offend
the
Constitution
when
those
statements
pose
a
“substantial
likelihood
of
material
prejudice”
to
the
integrity
of
the
trial. Gentile
v.
State
Bar
of
Nevada,
501
U.S.
1030,
1070
(1991).
Justice
Juan
Merchan,
who
is
presiding
over
Trump’s
false
business
records
trial
in
New
York,
explicitly
copied
the
DC
Circuit’s
ruling
to
ensure
that
his
own
gag
order
would
pass
Constitutional
muster,
and,
when
Trump
appealed,
the
First
Judicial
Department
refused
to
enjoin
it.
But
other
than
that,
you’re
doing
amazing,
sweetie!
And
now
we
honor
the
runner
up
in
the
STTTDRAL
category.
The
winner
is
…
…
drumroll,
please
…
OMG
IT’S
ALAN
DERSHOWITZ
AGAIN!
What
are
the
odds!
“There
is
a
statute
that
gives
him
the
right
to
leave
the
court
any
day,
but
the
statute
says
QUOTE
‘in
the
absence
of
an
objection
by
the
people.”
Dersh
continued.
“In
other
words,
the
prosecution
has
a
veto
over
the
judge’s
decision
whether
to
allow
him
to
leave
the
courtroom
in
any
given
day.”
Dersh
continued.
“That
is
unconstitutional,
and
this
case
ought
to
be
challenged,”
he
yelled,
gesticulating
wildly.
“There
ought
to
be
a
motion
made
by
Trump’s
lawyers
immediately
under
Section
340.50
in
which
the
judge
has
the
power
to
allow
him
to
leave
the
courtroom
and
campaign,
but
only
if
the
prosecution
agrees
to
it,
which
is
clearly
unconstitutional.”
Consent
motions
are
“clearly
unconstitutional”
now? Who
knew!
In
fact,
someone
else
made
a
similar
argument
in
2019,
arguing
that
his
conviction
on
a
traffic
ticket
should
be
voided
because
he
wasn’t
allowed
to
waive
his
appearance
in
court.
Justice
Phillip
Roche
vacated
the
defendant’s
plea,
but
not
in
a
way
that
helps
Dersh’s
pal
Donny:
Statutory
law
provides
this
right
of
waiver
to
all
charges
filed
in
local
court
including
misdemeanor
complaints,
prosecutor’s
information
and
simplified
informations
which,
by
definition,
include
simplified
traffic
informations
(CPL
340.10(1);
1.20(5)(a)).
In
contrast
to
felony
charges
which,
by
statute,
require
the
defendant
to
be
present
in
court
for
trial
(CPL
260.20),
the
statutory
law
governing
traffic
infractions
in
local
court
provides
a
procedure
by
which
a
defendant
may
waive
his
personal
appearance
at
trial
(CPL
340.50(2)).
[Emphasis
added.]
So
let’s
just
see
what
§
260.20
has
to
say
about
a
defendant’s
presence
at
a
jury
trial,
shall
we?
A
defendant
must
be
personally
present
during
the
trial
of
an
indictment;
provided,
however,
that
a
defendant
who
conducts
himself
in
so
disorderly
and
disruptive
a
manner
that
his
trial
cannot
be
carried
on
with
him
in
the
courtroom
may
be
removed
from
the
courtroom
if,
after
he
has
been
warned
by
the
court
that
he
will
be
removed
if
he
continues
such
conduct,
he
continues
to
engage
in
such
conduct.
Tune
in
next
week
on
Hannity
where
the
world’s
foremost
Constitution
Knower
will
explain
how
§
260.20
entitles
a
defendant
to
become
so
disruptive
by
snoring
that
the
court
lacks
discretion
to
keep
him
there
against
his
will.
People
v.
Trump [Case
Documents
via
Just
Security]
Liz
Dye lives
in
Baltimore
where
she
produces
the
Law
and
Chaos substack and podcast.