John Ashbrook

So many appellate arguments here. So many, so many arguments here. It's a case of first impression. It's a federal case brought in state court. The jurors didn't have to be insistent on what underlying crimes Trump allegedly committed. There is so much appellate practice here. It's actually exciting.

I'm not exactly sure why they would not be permitted to have all of that at the trial. Usually, at least in New York, you get extensive access to the medical examiner's files, including some of the items that were just articulated. They're in federal court now, so he's exhausted all of his... state court remedies. So they're in federal court.

I'm not exactly sure why they would not be permitted to have all of that at the trial. Usually, at least in New York, you get extensive access to the medical examiner's files, including some of the items that were just articulated. They're in federal court now, so he's exhausted all of his... state court remedies. So they're in federal court.

I'm not exactly sure why they would not be permitted to have all of that at the trial. Usually, at least in New York, you get extensive access to the medical examiner's files, including some of the items that were just articulated. They're in federal court now, so he's exhausted all of his... state court remedies. So they're in federal court.

It's under, I assume, some sort of habeas corpus, free the body claim, saying, look, our theory of the case was it wasn't the choke that killed him. There was other factors that killed him. But we weren't allowed access to all of the initial autopsy, the best evidence that could have been provided to us. We need that evidence to

It's under, I assume, some sort of habeas corpus, free the body claim, saying, look, our theory of the case was it wasn't the choke that killed him. There was other factors that killed him. But we weren't allowed access to all of the initial autopsy, the best evidence that could have been provided to us. We need that evidence to

It's under, I assume, some sort of habeas corpus, free the body claim, saying, look, our theory of the case was it wasn't the choke that killed him. There was other factors that killed him. But we weren't allowed access to all of the initial autopsy, the best evidence that could have been provided to us. We need that evidence to

reopen this case and say, because we didn't have this evidence, we were not able to prove that it was a heart condition or drugs that were in his system that caused the death, not the compression on his neck. And the judge is now saying, okay, I'm going to give it to you. Go at it.

reopen this case and say, because we didn't have this evidence, we were not able to prove that it was a heart condition or drugs that were in his system that caused the death, not the compression on his neck. And the judge is now saying, okay, I'm going to give it to you. Go at it.

reopen this case and say, because we didn't have this evidence, we were not able to prove that it was a heart condition or drugs that were in his system that caused the death, not the compression on his neck. And the judge is now saying, okay, I'm going to give it to you. Go at it.

So I'm going to wildly speculate because I wish I could talk to the lawyer who's representing him. But it has I'm like Arthur trying to figure this out, that you would assume that you had access to this. And he had a very able defense lawyer. I was always impressed with the way he tried the case.

So I'm going to wildly speculate because I wish I could talk to the lawyer who's representing him. But it has I'm like Arthur trying to figure this out, that you would assume that you had access to this. And he had a very able defense lawyer. I was always impressed with the way he tried the case.

So I'm going to wildly speculate because I wish I could talk to the lawyer who's representing him. But it has I'm like Arthur trying to figure this out, that you would assume that you had access to this. And he had a very able defense lawyer. I was always impressed with the way he tried the case.

I'm going to assume that there is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is often the case when you get to federal court under a 2255 that you allege that the defense lawyer didn't do ABC or D. And one of the ways you would prove that is that they didn't get or that there was some, I guess the flip side to that prosecutorial misconduct for not turning over certain items.

I'm going to assume that there is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is often the case when you get to federal court under a 2255 that you allege that the defense lawyer didn't do ABC or D. And one of the ways you would prove that is that they didn't get or that there was some, I guess the flip side to that prosecutorial misconduct for not turning over certain items.

I'm going to assume that there is an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is often the case when you get to federal court under a 2255 that you allege that the defense lawyer didn't do ABC or D. And one of the ways you would prove that is that they didn't get or that there was some, I guess the flip side to that prosecutorial misconduct for not turning over certain items.

If there are items that were not turned over or if the defense lawyer did not request those items or the items somehow got lost in transit, then I could see where this revolves around either prosecutorial misconduct or IAC, wild caveat, wild speculation. But even if you and the point you made, Megan, if in fact and it was, you're absolutely right that they argued that in closing.

If there are items that were not turned over or if the defense lawyer did not request those items or the items somehow got lost in transit, then I could see where this revolves around either prosecutorial misconduct or IAC, wild caveat, wild speculation. But even if you and the point you made, Megan, if in fact and it was, you're absolutely right that they argued that in closing.

If there are items that were not turned over or if the defense lawyer did not request those items or the items somehow got lost in transit, then I could see where this revolves around either prosecutorial misconduct or IAC, wild caveat, wild speculation. But even if you and the point you made, Megan, if in fact and it was, you're absolutely right that they argued that in closing.

And if they find something that either wasn't turned over or should have been requested, that supports that and supports a narrative that if the jury had known about it, it would have changed the direction of the conviction. And I can see where this this gambit has legs.