If you got charged committing a crime for something your lawyer told you was illegal, you could tell them I relied on the advice of my counsel.
However, if you want to raise that as a legal defense then you're giving up lawyer confidentiality privilege. And the prosecutors will get to see your communications with your council to see if this actually occurred.
So back in March Trump had to indicate if he was going to use this defense, he chose not to. If he declared he was going to use it, the DA could have gotten much more discovery from him.
So they tried something called presence of counseln then involvement of counsel and the judge would not let them do i
See this filing, search for this section
People's VI: Motion to Exclude Arguments Regarding Any Alleged Reliance on
Advice of Counsel Unless and Until Defendant Establishes A Sufficient Factual
Predicate for that Defense
This Court now rules that Defendant may not offer, or even suggest, the defense of "presence-of-counsel." To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it.
https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2024/2024-ny-slip-op-24121.html
Trump's lawyers tried again last week to use and the judge shot them down
Can someone versed in the law explain what PDJT means here?
You have a lawyer to advise you on the law.
You can ask can I do this? Is it legal?
If you got charged committing a crime for something your lawyer told you was illegal, you could tell them I relied on the advice of my counsel.
However, if you want to raise that as a legal defense then you're giving up lawyer confidentiality privilege. And the prosecutors will get to see your communications with your council to see if this actually occurred.
So back in March Trump had to indicate if he was going to use this defense, he chose not to. If he declared he was going to use it, the DA could have gotten much more discovery from him.
So they tried something called presence of counseln then involvement of counsel and the judge would not let them do i See this filing, search for this section
People's VI: Motion to Exclude Arguments Regarding Any Alleged Reliance on Advice of Counsel Unless and Until Defendant Establishes A Sufficient Factual Predicate for that Defense
Trump's lawyers tried again last week to use and the judge shot them down
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/21/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/judge-scolds-trump-lawyer-00159247t
Fascinating! Thank you for the in-depth summary!
Judge Merchan is a shithead.
Great way to troll the judge and the system though ( as if Trump didn't know all in your excellent explanation)