John Ashbrook

There you go channeling your pro-ho again. Just when I thought we had gotten to kind of you centered and being more moderate, you just go off. Not on Luigi. I am definitely very pro him going to jail forever. going to go as far as Dickie and tell you that I've seen no evidence, but I don't know what the evidence is.

There you go channeling your pro-ho again. Just when I thought we had gotten to kind of you centered and being more moderate, you just go off. Not on Luigi. I am definitely very pro him going to jail forever. going to go as far as Dickie and tell you that I've seen no evidence, but I don't know what the evidence is.

But I will tell you, whenever somebody argues about jury nullification, I'm always a little leery about that. There's always the overcharging by prosecutors. I don't I hear people protesting or being upset when prosecutors overcharge. A defense lawyer has a duty, and that's to zealously defend. It's a different duty than the prosecutor. The prosecutor is supposed to seek justice.

But I will tell you, whenever somebody argues about jury nullification, I'm always a little leery about that. There's always the overcharging by prosecutors. I don't I hear people protesting or being upset when prosecutors overcharge. A defense lawyer has a duty, and that's to zealously defend. It's a different duty than the prosecutor. The prosecutor is supposed to seek justice.

But I will tell you, whenever somebody argues about jury nullification, I'm always a little leery about that. There's always the overcharging by prosecutors. I don't I hear people protesting or being upset when prosecutors overcharge. A defense lawyer has a duty, and that's to zealously defend. It's a different duty than the prosecutor. The prosecutor is supposed to seek justice.

Now, what you call jury nullification, there, I'm sure, I would guess, there's going to be a robust exploration of the mental state of this young man if the facts are as simplistically and powerfully overwhelming as you've described them. I just don't know that yet. But if they are, as a defense lawyer, the first thing you do is you look at the evidence that the prosecution has.

Now, what you call jury nullification, there, I'm sure, I would guess, there's going to be a robust exploration of the mental state of this young man if the facts are as simplistically and powerfully overwhelming as you've described them. I just don't know that yet. But if they are, as a defense lawyer, the first thing you do is you look at the evidence that the prosecution has.

Now, what you call jury nullification, there, I'm sure, I would guess, there's going to be a robust exploration of the mental state of this young man if the facts are as simplistically and powerfully overwhelming as you've described them. I just don't know that yet. But if they are, as a defense lawyer, the first thing you do is you look at the evidence that the prosecution has.

At the same time, you walk and chew gum and you take a look at exactly what the mental state of your client is. And that's the important thing to do as a defense lawyer. And you don't get swayed by kind of one side or the other. And you're not looking necessarily when people talk about jury nullification, I always say, well, yeah, there's only two things that are not appealable in the criminal law.

At the same time, you walk and chew gum and you take a look at exactly what the mental state of your client is. And that's the important thing to do as a defense lawyer. And you don't get swayed by kind of one side or the other. And you're not looking necessarily when people talk about jury nullification, I always say, well, yeah, there's only two things that are not appealable in the criminal law.

At the same time, you walk and chew gum and you take a look at exactly what the mental state of your client is. And that's the important thing to do as a defense lawyer. And you don't get swayed by kind of one side or the other. And you're not looking necessarily when people talk about jury nullification, I always say, well, yeah, there's only two things that are not appealable in the criminal law.

One is a not guilty verdict, as Arthur mentioned, and the other is a presidential pardon. So those are the two kind of escape hatches. That's what our Constitution is based on. And I don't call it jury nullification. I call it not guilty.

One is a not guilty verdict, as Arthur mentioned, and the other is a presidential pardon. So those are the two kind of escape hatches. That's what our Constitution is based on. And I don't call it jury nullification. I call it not guilty.

One is a not guilty verdict, as Arthur mentioned, and the other is a presidential pardon. So those are the two kind of escape hatches. That's what our Constitution is based on. And I don't call it jury nullification. I call it not guilty.

Well, the judge relied on what's called the harmless error. He's like, even if it did come in, the evidence against Trump was overwhelming without this bad evidence. So it's harmless error that I allowed it in. And we're going to stick with the result that the jury gave. Typically, that's what an appellate court does. An appellate court rules. Yes, the trial judge should not allow this in.

Well, the judge relied on what's called the harmless error. He's like, even if it did come in, the evidence against Trump was overwhelming without this bad evidence. So it's harmless error that I allowed it in. And we're going to stick with the result that the jury gave. Typically, that's what an appellate court does. An appellate court rules. Yes, the trial judge should not allow this in.

Well, the judge relied on what's called the harmless error. He's like, even if it did come in, the evidence against Trump was overwhelming without this bad evidence. So it's harmless error that I allowed it in. And we're going to stick with the result that the jury gave. Typically, that's what an appellate court does. An appellate court rules. Yes, the trial judge should not allow this in.

He did allow it in. The jurors did hear it. But there was so much other evidence that it didn't matter. So that's where we are with that piece of the puzzle. The sentence in this case, I believe, was supposed to be July 16th. Then in between the conviction and July 16th, that's when the Supreme Court decision came down with the presidential immunity.

He did allow it in. The jurors did hear it. But there was so much other evidence that it didn't matter. So that's where we are with that piece of the puzzle. The sentence in this case, I believe, was supposed to be July 16th. Then in between the conviction and July 16th, that's when the Supreme Court decision came down with the presidential immunity.

He did allow it in. The jurors did hear it. But there was so much other evidence that it didn't matter. So that's where we are with that piece of the puzzle. The sentence in this case, I believe, was supposed to be July 16th. Then in between the conviction and July 16th, that's when the Supreme Court decision came down with the presidential immunity.