Monthly Archives: July 2022

Former President Donald Trump pictured at a Republican campaign event on June 25, 2022 in Mendon, Illinois. (Photo by Michael B. Thomas/Getty Images)

Donald Trump and his family were ordered to testify in the New York Attorney Generals investigation into allegations of fraudulent financial conduct by Trump and the Trump Organization. Although Trump and his children will appear for their depositions, dont expect them to say anything. The smart money is that they will assert the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any substantive questions.

Taking the Fifth has become a familiar moniker for all types of witnesses gangsters, politicians, even lawyers and judges. Yes, in a civil trial a jury may draw an adverse inference against a party who takes the Fifth. And, combined with the substantive evidence, a verdict canbe reached against that party resulting from the invocation of the privilege. Thus, there is a significant consequence for taking the Fifth in a courtroom setting. And why shouldnt there be?A party should indeed have the benefit of the adverse partys testimony in a civil case, and the party who refuses to testify should pay the price for that refusal, even if the asserting party is resting his silence on the fundamental constitutional right against self-incrimination, which would be fully protected if it were a criminal trial. That makes total sense!

Is there or should there be a difference in a civil trial? Maybe. Typically, when someone takes the Fifth in a proceeding of interest to the public, the man on the street draws an adverse inference against him, i.e., the person who asserts the Fifth is a bad guy. Why else would he take the Fifth? In fact, Donald Trump himself has publicly articulated this commonly-held view. The mob takes the Fifth, hesaid at a campaign rally in September 2017. If youre innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Ironically, Trump himself invoked the Fifth Amendment in 1990, during his bitter and public divorce from his late first wife, Ivana Trump. The real estate mogul took the Fifth to avoid answering questions about adultery, invoking the Fifth a total of 97 times in deposition questions that were mostly about other women. And many remember Senator Joe McCarthy pushing the envelope daily during the Army/McCarthy hearings in the early 50s, actually compelling witnesses to publicly take the Fifth in order to incite the public to vilify them.

Now, though, the shoe is on the other foot the Trump family itself is under the gun. Is the ex-president concerned? Probably not. His thinking on issues like this is quite malleable. He will simply say that he and his family have done nothing wrong, and that this is a political witch hunt, like so many other witch hunts against him, and theyll refuse to play ball. Half the public wont believe him, half will. And, as long as he has his half, he wont really care what the rest think.

So, while Trump may be sui generis and thus not a particularly good model for this discussionhis taking the Fifth does squarely raise the issue: Is it fair for the public to conclude that someone is a bad person simply because they take the Fifth Amendment? Is it reasonable or appropriate to make a negative assessment about someone who asserts a core constitutional right that has been a fundamental backstop against government overreaching since the dawn of the Republic? Put differently, does the rights mere assertion imply badness or wrongdoing, however lawful it clearly may be for any individual to take that tack?

According to public opinion polling, invoking the Fifth Amendment is not necessarily an indication that someone is guilty. In a poll conducted after Trumps legal team indicated the possibility of Trump pleading the Fifth in the Russia investigation, 51% of registered voters said that when someone invokes the Fifth Amendment, it does not usually mean they are guilty, while 36% said it usually does. 42% of Democrats said pleading the Fifth usually implies the person is guilty, compared to 31% of Republicans and 33% of independents who said the same.

Heres the irony. Steve Bannon was convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to even appear when he was subpoenaed by the U.S. House Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Had he simply appeared and asserted the Fifth to every question asked or to not produce protected documents, that would have been the end of the matter with no consequence to him other than the view that many would surely have as a result that he had, indeed, criminally participated in the riot. But he wanted to stand tall and not give an impression of weakness by relying on a constitutional right. He even says now, parenthetically,that if he has to go to jail, so be it!

Were not fans of Bannon. But doesnt it say something about how the public views decisions about someone taking the Fifth? In truth, the public has a perfect right to make that decision but is it fair? In a day when so much of our conduct has been criminalized, and with people often taking the Fifth for noble reasons such as protecting their families or themselves from personal embarrassment or their affiliations with ostracized groups is there anything bad about being a communist or belonging to the NAACP in Alabama? any thoughtful criminal lawyer will almost always counsel her client to take five.

By way of example, as a young prosecutor we sought an interview with a witness. His lawyer, a true Brahmin of the bar with total credibility, told us that his client had done nothing wrong and that the interview would accomplish nothing for us. Still, he would decline. He, indeed, said that if I were representing Jesus Christ himself nowadays, I would have him take the Fifth Amendment. Quite a statement!

But isnt there truth to what this lawyer said to us? Most thinking prosecutors today accept that almost every witnesss lawyer is totally justified in insisting on protection for a clients interview by a prosecutor. If so, why should the public draw the seriously negative inference that it typically does when a witness in an investigatory proceeding takes the Fifth? Yes, Bannon had a reason to resist invoking the Fifth he idealized himself in the martyr role as a Trump loyalist intent on fighting back against the House Select Committee. Most witnesses dont have such motivation. They and even more so their lawyers who advise them simply dont want to risk an overzealous prosecutor using an interview or testimony potentially out of context to make a case against them.

The contrast with Miranda during police interrogations is worth noting. Although police are able to get suspects to waive their Miranda rights in most cases, many suspects are advised by their lawyers not to speak to the police. Would anybody criticize the lawyer for giving this advice? Would anybody believe its bad advice, or that the suspects silence means hes guilty?

Most witnesses simply want to protect themselves and their loved ones. Why should they have to pay the price of the publics clamor against them for exercising a constitutional right? Shouldnt the public be better educated about the limited meaning of ones exercise of the constitutional right that should have no adverse consequences outside a courtroom setting? Yes, a hard-to-estimate but extremely significant number of those who take the Fifth probably have done something wrong that requires it. But what about the rest who assert it for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with being guilty?How often in common parlance do people say Ill take the Fifth when they themselves have done nothing wrong, but simply dont want to answer a question that is, for whatever reason, hard to deal with?

Joel Cohen, a former state and federal prosecutor, practices white collar criminal defense law as Senior Counsel at Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. He is the author of Broken Scales: Reflections On Injustice (ABA Publishing, 2017) and an adjunct professor at both Fordham and Cardozo Law Schools.

Bennett Gershman is a Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorneys Office, and a Special Assistant Attorney General in New York States Anti-Corruption Office.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.

Read more from the original source:
If Trump Takes the Fifth, Is He Guilty? - Law & Crime

The Fifth Amendment Bills of the 1999 Constitution, from Alteration One to Alteration Sixty-Six, have been approved by the Anambra State House of Assembly for the benefit of the people.

The Senate and House of Representatives, respectively, amended sixty-six sections of the 1999 Constitution in March of this year. The amended sections were sent to all state Houses of Assembly in Nigeria for consideration as it requires two-thirds of the states in Nigeria to pass it before it becomes law, according to the majority leader, Dr. Nnamdi Okafor.

Advertisement

Among the changes were those that supported the final autonomy of the state legislature, judiciary, local government, and independent candidacy.

Speaker of the House, Right Honourable Uche Okafor read out the sixty-six alterations to the House, while the lawmakers supported it through a voice.

In his reaction, the member representing Nnewi North Constituency, Honourable Nonso Smart-Okafor, commended the House for concurring with the entire alterations as sent to them by the National Assembly , stressing that the alterations were made to capture the present realities of the country and meet the yearnings and aspirations of the people.

Honourable Uzoma Eli, member representing Onitsha South One Constituency, described it as a step in the right direction, adding that the changes will ensure that Nigeria has a progressive constitution that can guarantee unprecedented development of the country.

See the article here:
Anambra House of Assembly Passes 5th Amendment Bills - TVC News

Grand juries play a major role in the U.S. criminal justice system. And theyre very much in the news these days.

A grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, is looking into former President Donald Trumps efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in that state. Among the latest witnesses to give testimony to the grand jury was Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp.

In Washington, D.C., the U.S. Justice Department is in the middle of an investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and it is questioning witnesses before a grand jury as well. Most recently, two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence were questioned in that probe.

A grand jury does not mean that the investigation will lead to any formal criminal charges, which are known as indictments. There was a grand jury that issued subpoenas during the investigation into Hillary Clintons email server, for example, but no one was charged with any crimes.

In order to understand grand juries and their work, I offer the following explanation of how federal and state grand juries are used in the U.S.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides the legal basis for grand juries. In federal criminal cases, federal grand juries are made up of 16 to 23 members. They decide whether to indict someone who is being investigated, and at least 12 grand jurors need to agree to issue an indictment.

In addition to considering whether individuals may have committed a crime, a grand jury can also be used by a prosecutor as an investigative tool to compel witnesses to testify or turn over documents. Reports indicate that Special Counsel Robert Mueller used a grand jury for the latter when he investigated whether there was collusion between former President Donald Trumps election campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 election.

Grand jurors are usually chosen from the same jury pool as trial jurors. For a federal grand jury, all U.S. citizens over the age of 18 living in the federal district courts geographic jurisdiction are in the pool.

Court clerks first identify members of the grand jury pool from public records, including records of licensed drivers and registered voters.

Next, prospective grand jurors are screened, usually through questionnaires.

To be a member of a federal grand jury, a person has to be adequately proficient in English, have no disqualifying mental or physical condition, not be currently subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored). The court then randomly chooses candidates for the grand jury from this pool.

In all felony cases, there must be a probable cause determination that a crime has been committed in order for a case to move forward to a trial or a plea. Probable cause means that there must be some evidence of each element of the offense.

In the federal system, a grand jury is the body that makes the probable cause determination. In many states, like Missouri, the probable cause determination can be made either by a grand jury or at a preliminary hearing before a judge.

When there is an option for either a grand jury or preliminary hearing to determine probable cause, the prosecutor decides which one to use. For example, in the shooting death of Michael Brown by police officer Darren Wilson in 2014, the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney brought the evidence to a grand jury rather than choosing to present evidence to a judge through a preliminary hearing. In serious cases like murder, most prosecutors use the grand jury because it is usually quicker than a preliminary hearing.

Most people whose cases go to the grand jury have already been arrested. These include all of the cases in which a person is arrested while committing a crime or shortly after the crime has been committed.

In some cases, like Muellers Russia investigation, prosecutors do not have all the evidence they need to make a good case. In these investigations, a grand jury is used to help with the investigation. Once the grand jury is impaneled, the prosecutor has the ability to subpoena records and witnesses.

Subpoena power means the prosecutor can compel witnesses to turn over documents and to testify. If the prosecutor obtains sufficient evidence of a crime, the same grand jury has the power to indict whomever it believes has committed a crime.

The work of a grand jury is required by law to be done in secret, so the public has no right to know who is subpoenaed or what documents the grand jury is reviewing. Even though the grand jury work is secret, federal rules and a majority of states permit grand jury witnesses to discuss what occurred when they testified.

In some high-profile cases, witnesses subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury will talk to the press if they think it will be helpful to them. For example, when former President Bill Clinton testified before a grand jury during the investigation into Whitewater real estate investment and the affair with Monica Lewinsky, he went on national television and announced that he had testified.

The secrecy of a grand jury presents some dangers. The defendant does not know the evidence being considered, does not have a right to be present, and cannot question the evidence early in the criminal justice process.

As a result of the secrecy, the grand jury can also end up being a tool of the prosecution, and the prosecutor can choose to withhold evidence that is favorable to the accused. That is why a former chief judge of the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York, famously said that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

These types of dangers are always present during any grand jury, and getting a grand jury to issue an indictment may be easy. But in high-profile cases, like the Russia connection to the Trump presidency and possibly the current investigation into Trumps efforts to overturn the election results in Georgia, proving wrongdoing beyond a reasonable doubt through a trial or a negotiated guilty plea usually proves much more difficult.

This is an updated version of a story originally published on Aug. 7, 2017.

Read the original:
How do grand juries work? Their major role in criminal justice, and why prosecutors are using them to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020...

To the Editor:

So many letters talking about criminalizing Trump when only one side of the story is coming out. The Jan. 6 hearings are all one sided. Purposely driven by House Dems and two RINOs to put as much scandalous information out to the public as possible. It can be seen in all of the negative Trump letters written in this forum that it is just an extension of what the biased media has presented. When will the media present the cross examination of these alleged crimes? Where is the due process of law stated in the Fifth Amendment? I for one would like to see an unbiased presentation of the other side of the story. If you were charged with a crime and only the prosecutor had the floor and no defense was allowed, how do you think the jury would vote? That is what we are seeing here right now.

Joe WollschlagerVillage of Hemingway

Read more:
We need to hear the unbiased story - Villages-News

Another federal trial is scheduled to begin in two weeks for two men accused of conspiring to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer.

But jurors wont be told much about their previous trial. In a final pretrial hearing Tuesday afternoon in Grand Rapids judge Robert Jonker ruled on what will and wont be allowed to be presented as evidence in the upcoming trial. One thing that jurors wont hear, Jonker said, is that two other men were found not guilty of the kidnapping conspiracy during the previous trial in the fall.

Adam Fox and Barry Croft are facing trial for the second time, after a jury deadlocked on their charges in the spring. Two other men - Daniel Harris and Brandon Caserta - were both acquitted.

But the outcome of the first trial should not be part of deliberations for jurors in the second trial, Jonker told attorneys Tuesday. In particular, evidence of the acquitals for Harris and Caserta cant be introduced as evidence in the trial, though Jonker said jurors may ultimately hear about it.

Defense attorneys for both Fox and Croft tried to argue that jurors may already come to the case knowing about the prior case.

The outcome of the first trial was somewhat unusual and it did gather a lot of press, said Christopher Gibbons, an attorney for Fox.

I think it needs to come out, argued Joshua Blanchard, Barry Crofts attorney.

Jonker acknowledged that some of the potential jurors in the case could have been following it closely, and could blurt out the outcome during the jury selection process - thus informing any other potential jurors about the outcome. But, he said, that didnt mean the acquittals could be treated as evidence by attorneys in the trial.

Another complicating factor could be that Caserta and Harris could be called as witnesses in the new trial, in which case jurors would likely find out about their acquittal. But Jonker said its also possible they would invoke their fifth amendment right to not self-incriminate. In that case, jurors wouldnt hear from them at all.

Jonker also ruled on other bits of possible evidence - including texts from a confidential informant in the case to his FBI handler, and evidence that one of the FBI agents in the case was trying to launch his own business on the side. Jonker ruled that, as in the previous case, most of that information would be inadmissible in the new trial.

A total of 14 men were charged over the alleged plot to kidnap Whitmer in 2020. Of those 14, six were charged in federal court. Two of them pleaded guilty, two were found not guilty and two are being retried. Eight other men face charges in state court, and have yet to face trial.

Jury selection for the trial against Croft and Fox is scheduled to begin August 9.

See the rest here:
Outcome of first kidnapping trial can't be used as evidence in second trial, judge rules - WKAR

On the eve of their first training camp as the Washington Commanders, coach Ron Rivera lamented his life since he took this job.

He was asked about his team being in the news all the time.

Its almost to be expected to be honest with you, Rivera said, in a revelatory moment describing the job description that wasnt included when he interviewed with Skipper Dan Snyder.

It goes in cycles, he said. It is situation circumstances, and to use a quote that, it is what it is, and I try to make sure it, for us, its whats interesting versus whats important and were back to football. And to me, the important thing is football. Im here to be judged on that.

OK. I know it may have slipped everyones mind, given the deluge of bad news that surrounds this franchise, but just last month, Rivera was fined $100,000 and lost two OTA practices for 2023 for excessive contacts during spring drills.

That may be football, Im not sure.

Then he spoke about the burden of the aura of self-destruction.

Does it make what I do harder? Rivera said. Yeah, it really does, because, and again, all that stuff thats happened, thats important.

OK. It is.

But to me, as a football coach, what I have to do is Ive got to make this team presentable as a football team on the football field and in the community, he said.

Presentable? Its good to have goals.

The players and coaches, we have to have success, Rivera said. We have to go out and play. Why? Because we need the fans behind us. The fans get behind us, give us support build this up, get some momentum going

Sorry, Ron, have to interrupt you for one of those cycles you spoke of. Your owner, Skipper Dan, testified Thursday virtually from his yacht somewhere overseas, where he has been hiding to avoid appearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform to testify about the toxic work atmosphere within the franchise under his ownership, the sexual misconduct allegations and just the overall subhuman tenure of his ownership.

Snyder has committed to providing full and complete testimony, and to answer the Committees questions about his knowledge of and contributions to the Commanders toxic work environment, as well as his efforts to interfere with the NFLs internal investigation, without hiding behind nondisclosure or other confidentiality agreements, a committee spokesperson said in a statement.

Skipper Dan agreed to testify virtually not under subpoena but under oath. Thats half a win for the committee, who wanted Skipper Dan on live streaming for the world to see the meltdown that surely would have taken place.

Remember Happy Thanksgiving?

But they did get an agreement that his testimony will be under oath. I suspect Rivera, who had to brush up on constitutional studies about the First Amendment after his defensive coordinator, Jack Del Rio, sabotaged the franchise with his dust-up comments about the Jan. 6 insurrection, will have to study his Fifth Amendment after his boss testimony which I assume we will read, not see or hear is revealed.

There reportedly will be a transcript of the testimony, and it is up to the committee if it gets released publicly. I cant fathom any scenario where it is not released by the committee. Any deal with Skipper Dans mouthpiece to withhold the transcripts would be hypocritical on a nuclear level after the committee has repeatedly admonished the NFL for withholding details of the Beth Wilkinson investigation into Skipper Dan and the organization.

OK, Ron, back to football.

A lot of optimism, more so than anything else, Rivera told reporters after the first day of camp. Thats what it really is. Everybody comes in with a good feeling, all that stuff, but for us, weve got to make sure its about the evaluation process and we got to continue to look at what we have and build on it.

There really is only one evaluation, one question that matters about this team as training camp unfolds. Yes, there is the health of defensive end Chase Young, tight end Logan Thomas, receiver Curtis Samuel and running back Antonio Gibson. There are always health questions in training camp.

But everything revolves around newly-acquired quarterback Carson Wentz, who was driven out of his two previous jobs in Philadelphia and Indianapolis Riveras future, the teams success, everything. It is the only true question that matters.

There. Thats the football.

You can hear Thom Loverro on The Kevin Sheehan Show podcast.

Link:
LOVERRO: The weight on Rivera's shoulders is inevitably about much more than football - Washington Times

Intersection needs four-way stop signsThis letter is intended for anyone in Schenectady politics. My wife and I live at the corner of Lenox Road and Raymond Street. This is the only intersection the entire length of Lenox Road that doesnt have a 4-way stop.Could someone please explain this to me? My wife and I have lived at that corner for almost 15 years and there are between five and nine accidents each year.The one on July 15 was one of the worst Ive ever heard, yes, heard. I heard the impact over the sound of my lawn mower and ear plugs. One day a car is going to run the stop sign and hit a child on a bike.Please, consider putting the two stop signs on Raymond.Butch SlaterSchenectady

Stefanik blatantly misleading publicRep. Elise Stefanik is at it again, lying and gaslighting to cover up the revelations of the Jan. 6 select committee of the House of Representatives.Stefanik played loose with the truth in telling the public this week that the Jan. 6 committee is devoid of Republican input and is nothing but a dog-and-pony show staged by the Democrats.Most of the witnesses called by the committee have been Republicans with an abundance of first-hand knowledge of the lead-up to and execution of the seditious riot. The Republicans initially shunned an attempt to create a bi-partisan investigation.Many Republican witnesses have defied subpoenas or invoked the Fifth Amendment.Its astounding how the Republican base allows Stefanik and the rest of the acolytes to mislead them while taking out their angst on those Republicans who put country over party and have come forward to tell the truth under oath. Liz Cheney, a pure conservative Republican, has taken a key role in the proceedings.Its up to voters to hold Stefanik accountable and recognize her brazen dishonesty in the name of sheer politics. The survival of our democracy depends on it.Al SingerBallston Spa

Ostrelich counter to MAGA RepublicansI have lived in Niskayuna for 19 years, raised my children here and am grateful to live in a caring community.I worry that too many of us are unaware of the threat posed by MAGA Republicans, even here in Niskayuna.We all want a future that builds on the progress of past generations. The MAGA Republicans want to undo that progress, roll back our rights, even cancel our freedom to have our voices heard at the ballot box.Lee Zeldin, a MAGA Republican at the top of the state ticket, voted against certifying the 2020 election, even after the Jan. 6 insurrection. Jim Tedisco, who proudly campaigns with Zeldin, voted against a womans right to make her own healthcare decisions and against early voting.MAGA Republicans do not offer progress, they offer contempt. They do not respect our decisions at the ballot box or in our doctors offices.I support Michelle Ostrelich because she has demonstrated a commitment to progress.She has been a long-term advocate for reproductive healthcare rights and has continued her advocacy as a co-founder of the Schenectady Coalition for Healthcare Access.Michelle is the kind of leader we need in the state Senate 44th District.Katie ChaoNiskayuna

Cartoon offensive to Biden, seniorsIn regard to your political cartoon in the July 20 Gazette which showed President Biden with a walker, what a terrible disservice to portray seniors this way.President Biden also rides a bicycle, keeps himself fit and trim.He does what a lot of seniors do, keeps busy and active.He cares for the people instead of himself, unlike the last occupant of the White House.James LechowiczSchenectady

Rules for commenting:The Gazette will not tolerate name-calling; profanity, threats; accusations of racism, mental illness or intoxication; spreading of false or misleading information; libel or other inappropriate language in any form, and readers may not make any such comments about or directly to specific individuals.Readers who violate the policy will be warned and then banned.

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

More here:
Letters to the Editor Monday, July 25 The Daily Gazette - The Daily Gazette

Alex Jones, host of Infowars, lost defamation lawsuits filed by parents of children killed in the Sandy Hook tragedy, as well as an FBI agent who responded to the shooting.

Here is what to know about Jones, his failed quest for bankruptcy protection, and the defamation awards trials pending in Texas and Connecticut by Sandy Hook families.

Alex Jones is an anti-government conspiracy theorist best known for his radio show and website "Infowars." He is one of the most influential conspiracy theorists in the United States. Some of his most recognizable claims include that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax to curtail Americans' gun rights, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job, and the Parkland, Florida, shooting was carried out by actors paid by the Democratic party, according to the Anti-Defamation League.

Alex Jones called the Sandy Hook massacre, where 20 students and six educators were killed, "staged," "synthetic," "manufactured," "a giant hoax," and "completely fake with actors" with inside job written all over it.

The short answer is three: two defamation lawsuits filed in Texas and a third defamation lawsuit filed in Connecticut. Jones lost all three cases by default after he was warned and later fined by judges in Texas and Connecticut over abuses of pre-trial procedure.

The next step in all three lawsuits is for a jury to decide in each case how much money Jones must pay in damages to the Sandy Hook families he defamed when he called the Sandy Hook massacre "staged," "synthetic," "manufactured," "a giant hoax" and "completely fake with actors." The first of those three trials was scheduled to begin in Texas on April 25. That didn't happen because Jones sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for three business entities he controls, which automatically froze the cases in state court.

In Texas, there are two sets of plaintiffs. The first set is the parents of slain Sandy Hook first-grader Jesse Lewis. The second set is the parents of slain Sandy Hook first-grader Noah Pozner.

In Connecticut, the plaintiffs are an FBI agent who responded to the 2012 massacre of 26 first-graders and educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and eight families who lost loved ones in the tragedy.

At each of the three trials, a jury will determine how much money Jones owes the plaintiffs. Judges in Texas and Connecticut already ruled in default judgments that Jones defamed the families, so the jury wont decide that.

Scarlett Lewis and Neil Heslin, the parents of Jesse Lewis, have their jury trial first in Austin, Texas. Jury selection is scheduled to begin July 25, with opening arguments beginning the next day. The trial is expected to last two weeks.

The Connecticut trial is scheduled to start with jury selection on Aug. 2 the second week of the Texas trial. But jury selection there will take about a month. The trial is expected to start Sept. 6.

The trial with Noah Pozners parents, Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, could begin as soon as September.

The Texas judge postponed an April trial for the parents of Jesse Lewis because three entities owned by Jones filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy about a week before the trial would have begun. The bankruptcy filings held up the Connecticut case, too.

The Sandy Hook families in Texas, and later in Connecticut, requested a federal judge to dismiss the filings, arguing they were in bad faith.

It's important to note that while Jones' representatives say Jones has suffered financially because of the Sandy Hook lawsuits, spending $10 million on legal fees, and losing $20 million in sales, Jones himself did not file for bankruptcy, nor did his parent company, Free Speech Systems.

After about a month, a federal bankruptcy judge released Jones from Chapter 11 protection, clearing the way for the Texas trial to resume. The Sandy Hook families in Connecticut agreed to drop the three Jones-controlled entities under bankruptcy from the defamation lawsuit, allowing the Connecticut trial to go ahead.

Jones has used his platform to share disinformation about COVID-19, the vaccine and treatments, including ivermectin.

Jones met with the Jan. 6 committee that's investigating the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol. According to his lawyer, in a report, he pleaded the Fifth Amendment over 100 times.

The popular "Full Send" podcast hosted Alex Jones a week after President Donald Trump appeared on the show in March 2022. Jones offered an explanation as to why the YouTube version of the Trump interview was deleted off the platform.

An open critic of cryptocurrency, Jones was gifted over $2 million worth of Bitcoin from an anonymous donor in April 2022 as the radio host faced financial difficulty due to his lawsuits with the Sandy Hook families.

Derek Turner and Rob Ryser contributed to this report.

Read the original:
FAQ: The Sandy Hook and Alex Jones defamation trials - Danbury News Times