Beyond Labels

Note: There will be no Beyond Labels meeting on September 4. The library is closed for Labor Day.

Continuing our U.S. justice system “thread,” we’ll discuss how the U.S. system compares to those of other countries.

It was observed last week that our system is structured as an adversarial one, in which the prosecution/complainant’s attorney competes with that of the defendant to convince a jury (or judge) that their position should prevail. And that competition isn’t always particularly “fair,” in the sense that there is often a financial behemoth (the government in criminal cases; large corporations in civil ones) on one side and a party with substantially less resources on the other. We’ll explore whether there might be a better way to deliver more consistent justice, taking guidance from other systems around the world.

To get us started, here is a suggestion from one of our attendees:

Here’s a good introduction to the different legal systems in the world. I particularly liked the maps and the chart. I think this would be helpful for folks to read before our next Beyond Labels meeting. I will do more reading beyond this. Fascinating stuff. When I graduated from law school, I had 3 choices: accept a two-year Fellowship at Columbia U. Law School in Comparative Law, which would give me an SDJ (most advanced law degree), accept a scholarship at Tulane U. Law School (Louisiana) to earn an SJD in Marine and Ocean law; or practice public interest law and run some Ralph Nader groups. It was a difficult choice but I chose Nader. But my interest in comparative law lingers, ditto Ocean law (hence my earlier suggestion for Beyond Labels to look at Arctic issues that I’ve always followed).

Here’s the link: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-political-science/pages/11-3-types-of-legal-systems-around-the-world

We decided last week that we might discuss Trump’s then-anticipated indictment by a Fulton County, GA grand jury under that state’s Little RICO (Racketeering-Influenced Corrupt Organizations) statute. Sure enough, that indictment was filed last Monday.

Eighteen other defendants are named in the indictment, including Rudy Giuliani (who, ironically, made his name as the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York by getting indictments against mob bosses and underlings and winning some of those cases), Mark Meadows, Jeffrey Clark, and others. The indictment comprises 41 counts, ranging from soliciting a public officer to violate their oath, conspiring to impersonate a public officer, conspiring to commit forgery in the first degree, and conspiring to file false documents, You can find the full text (.pdf format) of the indictment, in The Washington Post, at https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/1ccdf52e-1ba2-434c-93f8-2a7020293967.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_5. There’s also an annotated version of the indictment from The New York Times at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/08/15/us/politics/trump-georgia-indictment-annotated.html.

Among the many questions one could discuss about this indictment are:

Will it ever come to trial?

Why did Fani Willis, the Fulton County DA, decide to try all 19 defendants at the same time?

Why has Mark Meadows moved that the matter be removed to Federal Court, and what’s the likelihood that will happen (see ?https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/08/20/georgia-trump-trial-move-federal-court/)?

Which of the four indictments of Trump should come to trial first, and why? ?he Manhattan District Attorney’s, accusing Trump of criminal falsification of business records under New York law? The Federal indictment in Florida in connection with the wrongful possession of national security documents, obstruction, etc.? The Federal indictment in Washington, DC regarding the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election? The indictment in Georgia? Or others yet to come (e.g., witness tampering, wire fraud in connection with the solicitation of campaign donations, etc., etc.)?

Alternatively, what about trying to disqualify Trump as a candidate on the grounds that he violated his oath of office by overt insurrection against the United States and/or giving aid and comfort to its enemies (US Constitution, Amendment 14, Sec. 3), as proposed by J. Michael Luttig and Lawrence Tribe (see https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/donald-trump-constitutionally-prohibited-presidency/675048/)? (Note: This article appears in The Atlantic; I’m not a subscriber, so this link connects to only the first few paragraphs, but maybe one of you has a subscription and can post a link to the entire article.)

See you all on Monday morning.