You may recall Donald Trump going off on Judge Juan Merchan and accusing him of being highly biased. Trump said Merchan’s daughter worked for Kamala Harris and the Biden/Harris campaign, and therefore would never give him an even break. Eric and Junior got into the critique fest as well.
Merchan is presiding over the Manhattan District Attorney’s investigation of Trump and today he ruled to not allow Alvin Bragg access to emails which he subpoenaed, saying that the request was overly broad. That ought to take the wind out of Trump’s sails. Or more likely, he’ll find a way to spin it. CBS News:
A New York judge has ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump’s effort to block a pair of Manhattan district attorney subpoenas seeking emails sent by former first lady Melania Trump and other documents in his New York criminal case.
The judge, Juan Merchan, ruled that the subpoenas were overly broad. Prosecutors for Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg’s office had sought to obtain those emails and documents as part of a felony case against Trump for alleged falsification of business records.
The quashed subpoenas also sought nearly a year’s worth of emails between Trump Organization employees and White House officials, more than two years of Trump’s travel itineraries, and emails between former Trump executive assistant Rhona Graff and Melania Trump, as well as from Graff to former director of Oval Office operations Keith Schiller.
“This request would yield significantly more responsive records than necessary,” Merchan wrote of the subpoena related to Melania Trump.
Here we see a judge doing his job, but again, I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. Trump will find some simplistic, paranoid way to spin this. I have no doubt.
I don’t understand the judge’s response. How could he possibly know that the “request would yield SIGNIFICANTLY MORE responsive records than necessary” until the records are actually provided?
I could understand if the judge required all the subpoenaed material be turned over to him (and, most likely, his staff) to look through and THEN determine if the request was “significantly more than necessary” or not but to make a determination without actually having access to a single document or email under the request strikes me as troublesome. Perhaps the DA could/should ask the judge to EXPLAIN how he arrived at his determination without having seen a single piece of the requested material.
At least in part it may be spousal immunity which refers to the right of a spouse not to testify against the other spouse and belongs to the spouse called upon to testify. Marital communication privilege belongs to either spouse and bars specified communications between spouses. It Protects words and acts intended to be communications. Also known as The Law of Spousal Privilege – Stimmel Law.
Except that “spousal privilege” CAN be waived in certain situations (notably in rape and domestic violence cases but there are other instances) and there’s no way to know what is TRULY “privileged” information and what isn’t since the judge made his blanket ruling. If Melania had ANY kind of title with regards to the “Trump Organization,” any emails or documents directed to her–even from Trump himself–in her role with the Organization would NOT be covered by spousal privilege.
Additionally, “spousal privilege” applies to two different notions: Communications privilege and testimonial privilege. In most jurisdictions, if the communications are not INTENDED to be confidential (such as business matters which had also been discussed with others), then there’s no expectation of privilege. The testimonial privilege, under Federal law, applies only to the witness-spouse, not the “party-spouse” (the person facing the civil or criminal action); however, this doesn’t necessarily apply to all state jurisdictions, though from one quick search, a New York law firm does seem to indicate that the witness-spouse CAN break the testimonial privilege–unless I’ve grossly misread the information.
Read for yourself (yourselves) at https://fastlawpc.com/what-is-spousal-privilege-in-criminal-cases/ The article was posted in September of 2021 so it’s probably still accurate and applicable. And, since the firm is located in New York City, I’d say they would have the requisite knowledge.
I don’t know about the other requested material but let’s clear up Natasha’s one email/text to hubby…LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE. Useless in a trial.