Of course, the big question was: did Michael Cohen lie to the House committee?

To determine that, let’s look at tools that anyone can use.  The media “experts” kept saying to be believable, Michael Cohen should produce corroboration for his accusations.  That means, he needs to have more evidence—independent of himself.  A good example is the check he gave to the committee.  But there are many more tools besides corroboration the experts missed.

Here’s what I mean.  All states have guidelines for juries to help them determine the trustworthiness of witnesses in trial.  Let’s look at Florida’s list as an example.  (These are similar across the country)   Anyone can apply these tools to Michael Cohen’s testimony.

1.  Did the witness have the opportunity to see and know what he testified about?

2.  Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

3.  Was the witness honest and straightforward about answering questions?

4.  Did the witness have an interest in the outcome of the case?

5.  Has the witness been offered anything to get them to testify?  (Reduced prison time is common)

6.  Has any pressure or threats been made against the witness to get them to say something?

7.  Has the witness been convicted of a crime that involves dishonesty or truthfulness?

8.  Has the witness testified earlier to things that contradict what he testified about in this trial?

As you can see from this list, there are many other things to keep in mind besides corroboration.  All of these tools are equally important and should be used by anyone trying to decide if someone is lying.

You can use them for any case.  Not only Michael Cohen.  Think back to the senate hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court.  Christine Blasey Ford testified about him.  Again, all the “experts” kept harping on the lack of corroboration.

Sometimes, crimes don’t have corroboration—like sexual assault.  It’s just two people.

That’s when other tools become important for you to use.  Think about these the next time there’s public  testimony.  Of course, the Michael Cohen hearing was not a trial.  It didn’t have the tight rules that are applied in a trial.  That give the best chance for a jury to find the truth.

As in so much of politics, the truth is irrelevant.

The post What Legal Piece People Missed About Michael Cohen’s Testimony appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The politicians and the media make a big deal of Neil Gorsuch as the newest justice.  Will he make a big difference for conservative causes?  I’m not so sure.  Certainly, a president can influence the direction of the court—especially if they have the opportunity to appoint several people to the court.  Politicians warn people if they vote for the “wrong” candidate the country will be ruined forever by a crazy Supreme Court.  So, the selection of Neil Gorsuch took on ominous consequences.

But how powerful and meaningful are these appointments—really?

Look at this example from history.  It may put this fear into perspective.  When Dwight Eisenhower was president (ancient history, I know!) in the 50’s, he appointed a solid politician from California to the Court—Earl Warren.  Warren started his career as the prosecutor in Oakland, California.  He ran for office on a law-and-order platform, promising to “get tough on criminals.”  After his successful work there, he ran for governor of California and won.  He dreamed of himself running for president and launched a campaign for that in the early 50’s.  When he got the to Republican convention in 1952, it became obvious that he didn’t stand a chance.  He was much more a politician than Neil Gorsuch.

Instead, he switched his allegiance to the popular general, who had just decided that he was a Republican, and persuaded the California delegation to do the same.  Warren even made the nominating speech for Eisenhower.

Of course, Eisenhower went on to defeat Adlai Stevenson in the general election.  As a reward to Warren, Eisenhower appointed the former prosecutor and law-and-order man to the supreme court.  He appeared to be a solid conservative like Neil Gorsuch.

At first, Warren was quiet but he gained political strength and became the chief justice.  During the 60’s the Warren court veered far to the liberal side in defense of criminal rights.  Warren and his colleagues decided many far-reaching cases.  They protected the rights of criminals against brutal and aggressive police tactics.  The law-and-order people and conservatives went nuts.  They felt like Warren had “turned on them.”

Eisenhower even said, “Warren was the worst damn decision I ever made as president.”  What will President Trump say of Neil Gorsuch in the future?  Will Justice Gorsuch rubber-stamp opinions for the conservatives?

Here’s the point.  Even though the supreme court nominees appear to think in a particular fashion, once they get a lifetime appointment they are free to decide cases in any way they like.  And, many times, they surprise their strongest supporters by doing, not what the politicians want, but what their conscience dictates.

At least, Justice Neil Gorsuch had a solid record as a judge—even if you disagree with some of his decisions.  How he will vote in the future?  Neil Gorsuch probably doesn’t know until the specific cases reach his desk.

The post Will Justice Neil Gorsuch Matter? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

The crises occurs because each political party wants to stack the court with jurists they feel will be sympathetic to their positions.  But unlike elected people in congress or the president, no one can predict when an opening will occur on the court.  We know the president may be changed every four years, senators every six, etc.  Once a justice is chosen for the court, they remain there for life or unless they voluntarily retire.

Here’s my proposal: Congress should change the law and require justices to retire at age 70—or in line with our aging yet healthy population—age 75.  This change would have several advantages to fix the Supreme Court.

1.  Both Republicans and Democrats would know exactly when a justice’s term is done.  There would be time for the parties to prepare candidates for the court on a regular basis.
2. Both parties know the court will change regularly as the justices are forced to retire.  So, there will be an automatic rotation of new people coming onto the bench and less catastrophic crises.
3. Even though people are living longer and can retain their physical and mental health, it does get more difficult for older people to stay sharp.  By forcing younger people onto the court, we can be assured they’re competent.  This could help to fix the Supreme Court.
4. Many state courts have a mandatory retirement age of 70.  Some state court judges have even gone to the U.S Supreme Court to argue this is wrong.  The Supreme Court ruled that a mandatory retirement age was constitutional.  Why not apply that to the U.S. Supreme Court itself?
5. Right now, presidents get the opportunity to add many people to the Supreme Court.  With mandatory retirement, presidents would get several choices.  This would fix the Supreme Court by giving both political parties many candidates to rotate on and off the court.
6. It would give fresh, new people and ideas a chance to be on the court.  Now, many of the justices serve for decades and never change their ideas in any significant way.

If you want to read more about the idea, here’s a good article from “Fix the Court.”  It’s a little older, so some of the people they refer to have already gone on the court, or not.

FTC Op-Ed: A Mandatory Retirement Age for Supreme Court Justices

The post Here’s How to Fix the Supreme Court appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

He owned several companies that operated parts of his business at Paisley Park in Minnesota.  For instance, one of his companies owned the real estate, another owned the recording equipment, etc.  While working at the studio, one of Prince’s employees was injured when a heavy boom fell on his head.

Apparently, the victim wasn’t satisfied with the financial compensation because he sued the company and, therefore Prince.

Rumors flew all over the courthouse that Prince would be called as a witness in the personal injury trial.  Many of us gathered in the audience section of the courtroom and waited.

What would Prince be like?  What would he look like?  What would he do?

Courtrooms are normally formal, subdued environments.  Would Prince do something wild?  Sing to the judge?  Dance?  Would his entourage fill the courtroom, all dressed in purple?

The usual way to get to the courtroom—ride the public elevator and walk into the room—wouldn’t work for someone like Prince.  He was escorted into the building at the ground level by deputy sheriffs.  (For his protection and to keep crowds away)  They took him up to the courtroom by way of the secure prisoner’s elevator!

I was in the courtroom when he entered alone.  None of his entourage were with him.  I was struck be how small he was (5’2″) because of the film and video I’d seen that made him look “larger than life.”  He stepped up to the witness stand and shrank behind the microphone—which was opposite of what he did on stage.  His afro was long and he wore his trademark flashy, purple jacket with a high collar.  His face looked pale, almost white.

I was impressed by a number of things.  His public image was so “on the edge,” sexy, and wild.  In person, he spoke quietly and respectfully to all questions—even to the lawyers who badgered him.  He was humble and actually looked uneasy during his public appearance for the trial.

There were no “fireworks” in the courtroom, he finished his testimony, and walked back to the prisoner’s elevator in platform shoes.  He left the impression of a capable, humble, polite, and almost normal—person.  In spite of his fame.

The post My Own Prince Story appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

First of all, what is a grand jury?  Unlike a 12 person jury in a trial, the grand jury has 23 members who meet in secret and hear evidence presented by a prosecutor.  The defendant is usually not called nor is a defense lawyer present.  The jurors may question the witnesses and the prosecutor.  After hearing the evidence, they choose to either indict the suspect or not.

Opponents of the grand jury system for reviewing possible police misconduct say:

1.  The proceedings are in secret and not open to the public
2. The prosecutor can influence the grand jury and will take the side of the police
3. None of the evidence presented at the hearing will be made public unless the suspect is indicted
4. The recent history of grand jury hearings in Minnesota about police misconduct have resulted in no indictments

Here’s an editorial that supports retaining the present system:  http://www.startribune.com/grand-juries-serve-justice-in-police-cases/369194291/  It’s written by someone who served on a grand jury.

Here are some legal reasons we should keep in mind when deciding to keep the present grand jury system.

Of all citizens, only police are legally justified to use deadly force.  If I kill my neighbor, I will be charged with murder.  But legislatures have carved-out an exception for law enforcement—they may use deadly force in a reasonable way in the discharge of their duties.  So, their conduct is measured by a different standard.

The proceedings should remain secret.  The purpose is to avoid mob rule or to charge innocent people just because the media or the public want an indictment.  After all, when the prosecutor charges a citizen, it is done in secret—the prosecutor doesn’t share any evidence until the case goes to trial.

Opponents say few, if any, cops are indicted.  They forget that the standard for a cop accused of murder is different than for me.  The grand jury looks at the cop’s actions decides if the cop acted in a “reasonable manner under all the circumstances.”  We need to retain that standard.  Otherwise, no police officer will do their job.  They’ll worry any time they’re trying to enforce the law and someone is killed the cop will be indicted.

Of course, it’s a tragedy when anyone is killed—even a criminal.  But there are times when this action is justified.  There are times when the rest of us are threatened by dangerous criminals.  We need police who are willing to act in those situations to protect the rest of us without worrying about being indicted.

What do you think we should do?

The post Abolish Grand Jury for Police Behavior?? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.