…But Was It a Crime? (Live From Harvard)

Don't let your clients plea to things that are not crime.

By and
30

Sarah and David return to Harvard Law School to beguile the young generation with stories of squirrel rescues and FedSoc of yore. Oh yes, and to discuss the Trump indictments.

-FedSoc: Generations

-What we don’t know about the Trump indictments

-Sarah and David, criticized

-Stretching the facts // Stretching the law

-What happens now?

-Alan Dershowitz reminiscence

-DeSantis and the Questionable Circumstances Exception Standard

-Q&A

Bonus discussion: Jonesing for Sarah explaining the law against perpetuity? Check it out on The Dispatch Podcasts YouTube channel.

By and
Comments (30)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Wroehsner

    Loved the Pod! One question, does it matter for the rule against perpetuity stuff that Charles III isn’t actually the “King of England”? The kingdom of England was merged with the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 to the Kingdom of Great Britain and therefore there has been no “King of England” for more than 300 years.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Christopher Jenkins

    Hasn’t Patterico contributed a piece for The Dispatch before? Seems like David should have at least known how to pronounce his name. But then again, David mispronounces everything, so maybe I’m expecting too much.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Christopher Jenkins

      Here’s the piece he contributed, about a year ago:

      https://thedispatch.com/article/sanctioning-putin-an-interview-with/

      Collapse
  3. Dennis.Cariello

    Great podcast as always. I think there is another reason why it has to be the Defendant's crime that the falsification of records relates to. If not, then you could use a crime where the Defendant was the victim. Blackmail cases could present this situation often. Because the Defendant wanted to hide the fact of the blackmail - which seems reasonable if they paid the blackmail after all - they mislabeled the expense on some document. While I understand why the law might have concerns about records falsification covering up any blackmail, it seems very unfair to have a victim be considered, essentially, an accessory to the crime against him.

    Collapse
  4. Stephen.Fenwick

    Separation of Powers - would appreciate hearing thoughts on Wisconsin supreme court election n the very political leanings of both candidates. What is the impact on governance and the adjudication of actual law when the third leg of American governance simply becomes another political channel?

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    When I first hit play, I was half expecting this to be an April Fools prank…

    Collapse
  6. Helbock

    Good !!!!! You two. THANK YOU

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ian Fillmore

    Maybe this is a stupid question, but I'm wondering about how someone can plead to something that is not a crime. Here's an extreme hypothetical. Suppose a police officer witnesses me jaywalking. He arrests me and during interrogation I provide a detailed and accurate confession of the details of my jaywalking crime. But I don't plead guilty to jaywalking, I plead guilty to assault. So the fact pattern in the confession matches jaywalking, but the plea is to assault. In court, before a judge, I announce that I wish to plead guilty to assault. It sounds like this is an outlandish version of what Michael Cohen (maybe) did?

    My question is, shouldn't the judge refuse to accept my guilty plea? I mean, is it not both my lawyer's and the judge's job to make sure that the facts I am confessing to match the legal definition of the crime I am pleading guilty to?

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Geofflanotte

    I really like the CNN Poll/headline "Majority of Americans approve of Trump indictment" - it is nice that people can approve of something where the contents are completely sealed.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ian Fillmore

      That's a good example of how poll questions inevitably sneak premises in. Simply by asking "Do you approve of X" you have snuck the premise that the respondent SHOULD have an opinion about X. Or at least that the respondent COULD have an opinion about X.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      THANK YOU

      Collapse
  9. Catherine_g

    Regarding tolerance I think it would be useful to distinguish between tolerance and toleration. They are related but different concepts. While tolerance is the willingness to accept and respect different beliefs, opinions, and behaviors, even if one does not necessarily agree with or endorse them; toleration is the deliberate decision to allow something that is perceived as undesirable or objectionable. It was the emergence of the idea of religious toleration that was a key factors contributing to the end of the European Wars of Religion. At a minimum we need toleration for freedom of speech to exist.

    Collapse
  10. Melinda Szell

    No one has asked this yet (clearly the most important story in this episode), so please do tell, Sarah: What ended up happening to the baby squirrel you picked up?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      He went to a local wildlife rescue facility! We named him volleyball after the nearby HLS court.

      Collapse
Load More