Because his remarks will be “leaked” and it will be full of horrendous and inflammatory shit and probably not even be legal (I’m pretty sure there’s limits on what can be said in closing statements.
In practice, judges give attorneys great freedom at closing, as long as the argument has some relation to the evidence presented at trial. Additionally, judges must carefully craft any restrictions on closing so that they don’t deny the defendant the opportunity to discuss important considerations for the jury.
Nonetheless, there are limits to proper closing argument. When attorneys overstep them, usually a judge will simply tell the jury to disregard the improper argument. But when attorneys commit serious misconduct during closing, a judge might declare a mistrial, and if not, a court of appeal might overturn any conviction.
Arguments must be based on evidence. Most importantly, the conclusions that an attorney urges a jury to draw must be based on the evidence. Counsel cannot use the closing argument as an opportunity to refer to evidence that wasn’t part of the trial. For example, an attorney can’t argue that no similar crimes have been committed in the location in question since the defendant’s arrest without having presented evidence to that effect.
Arguments cannot be irrelevant, confusing, or prejudicial. Judges can also prohibit or exclude arguments that are unrelated to the case, confusing, or inflammatory. For example, name-calling is generally forbidden. And asking the jury to “send a message” to other criminals by finding the defendant guilty may be improper since the focus is only whether the particular defendant on trial committed a crime. (State v. Woodard, 2013 ME 36 (2013).)
*emphasis mine.
**lots of emphasis on that last emphasis. you know why.
The judge basically is the jury. Well, that’s an oversimplification.
There’s still limitations on it, and all that really means is that the people/person making the decision are going to be far less tolerant of name calling and threats,
I saw a video of a judge that had to send the defendant into another courtroom, then they let him watch on TV and they would turn his mic on to answer questions and then just turn it off when he went a ramblin’.
I mean, that’s effective… but imagine the memes of Trump in a ball gag…
(on second thought, don’t…I regret everything.)
Actually, that’d be a good set up for debates. put them in sound proof boxes so neither candidate can interfere if the mic is ‘Off’. The other thing is, the mic gets sent to two channels, one of which is used to give subtitles, so we can still see the crazy.
Accompanied by whining “they wouldn’t let me”
Because his remarks will be “leaked” and it will be full of horrendous and inflammatory shit and probably not even be legal (I’m pretty sure there’s limits on what can be said in closing statements.
from nolo:
*emphasis mine.
**lots of emphasis on that last emphasis. you know why.
I don’t think this trail has a jury and is purely to set damages.
I say this is it is important to the implications.
The judge basically is the jury. Well, that’s an oversimplification.
There’s still limitations on it, and all that really means is that the people/person making the decision are going to be far less tolerant of name calling and threats,
I wonder if that all applies the same way, since this is a civil trial and there is no jury.
in as far as there’s limitations… sure.
I expect if he does do his own closing argument and he goes into making-threats-territory, or something, he’s just gonna get muzzled.
I wonder if judges can order actual, literal ball gags for defendants who just won’t shut up?
I saw a video of a judge that had to send the defendant into another courtroom, then they let him watch on TV and they would turn his mic on to answer questions and then just turn it off when he went a ramblin’.
I mean, that’s effective… but imagine the memes of Trump in a ball gag… (on second thought, don’t…I regret everything.)
Actually, that’d be a good set up for debates. put them in sound proof boxes so neither candidate can interfere if the mic is ‘Off’. The other thing is, the mic gets sent to two channels, one of which is used to give subtitles, so we can still see the crazy.
I would start watching debates again if they made that the setup.
It’d take issuing swords and dueling vests, for me. Maybe also a parry dagger.