General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPossible reason Judge doesn't want to put him in jail for gag violations...
The most important thing for the judge...is to get through the trial and keep everyone safe. It may be MORE dangerous for the trial participants if he jails TSF. This is way effed up any way you cut it.

ripcord
(5,553 posts)They are rushed and overburdened every morning trying to get thousands of detainees out to court dates. Can you imagine how badly the turd and his protection detail will screw that up?
bucolic_frolic
(49,278 posts)Throw the crook in jail. That's the purpose of having a legal code.
Vinca
(51,773 posts)It's a shame the judge doesn't have the option of sentencing him to community service. Specifically, picking up trash along the highway. "Hey, Don, you missed that used condom over there."
If he's convicted the jurors could possibly be looking at retaliation from Trump's cult, and after the trial they'll be more vulnerable!
crud
(934 posts)I think that is what the point is. The threats are keeping him out of jail, because putting him in jail might bring more than just the threat of violence. It's not a justification, just the reality of the situation we are faced with. Like you said, even after the trial, we still need to deal with this.
RockRaven
(17,056 posts)And while there is no good reason why jailing TFG for contempt should generate delays in the progress of the trial or be used amongst every other things his lawyers can imagine as grounds for an appeal after he is convicted... It is TFG, so of course both things would happen.
Irish_Dem
(66,263 posts)The major reason he would think about jailing Trump is to ensure the safety of the jury
and witnesses. To get Trump to shut up.
Other than that, I don't think he wants to jail Trump.
But he will if he has to for safety reasons.
onenote
(44,995 posts)crud
(934 posts)and frankly I hope you are right. I don't want the fear of violence to prevent justice being done.
leftieNanner
(15,899 posts)1. The judge could sentence him to jail and then stay the decision until after the trial.
Or 2. He could lock him up immediately and have him brought to court every morning - preferably in a jumpsuit and handcuffs.
onenote
(44,995 posts)Forcing a defendant to wear prison garb and be shackled is presumptively prejudicial.
In Deck v Missouri, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the use of physical restraints visible to the jury during a criminal trial, absent a court determination that they are justified by an essential state interest . . . specific to the defendant on trial. The New York Court of Appeals has followed the Deck precedent, holding that, as a matter of both federal and state constitutional law, "a defendant has the right to be free of visible shackles, unless there has been a case-specific, on-the-record finding of necessity."
Similarly, in Estelle v Williams, the Supreme Court found that forcing a defendant to wear prison attire in front of a jury infringed on the defendant's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights.
leftieNanner
(15,899 posts)A girl can dream, can't she?
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
maxsolomon
(36,088 posts)Martyrdom is all it's got.
Marchan isn't going to give it what it wants.