Trump trial musings: How can a prosecution meet the best evidence rule when all the papers are secret? Add to that, what jury instructions end up being given can be expected as being a factor of "reasonable" bench discretion if not greater deference, and that a single juror can hang a jury. With all that, we're in for a very big show.

 Best evidence rule.

Are there pattern jury instructions sufficient for parties to agree? No. Instructions under the Espionage Act, that little used legislation that grew from WW I hysteria, will be contested. The act was written, the text exists, but it was written before today's classification boondoggle had grown, where classification did not exist for a text which originalist appellate judges might haggle over forever, (imagine if Scalia were still with us with his "original meaning is how I divine it" attitude), and then, the one or more Trumpist rouge juror(s), from trial to retrial, hanging and hanging.

It will be ugly. Swampy. And for all We the People know, one or more documents could be about Burisma. 

When it is "Secret, but Trust Me," will unanimous juries do so? 

Would you be fully trusting of a clearly partisan lawyer saying, "Trust me!"?

Devil in the details? Why expect anything but that?

___________UPDATE___________

Dershowitz interviewed by Forbes

 On YouTube. About the indictment. About facts. Under fifteen minutes. It is hard to find fault with anything he says. He avoids flogging the big picture - how much do you need to take down a candidate for reelection to the Presidency. 

At the outset: He mentions it, but it is more a trial lawyer's view of what is going on. How things likely might unfold. He does not get into handicapping the odds.

Again, short, and hard to dispute.

FURTHER: Dershowitz on FOX, another 15min YouTube, almost no overlap with the Forbes item; readers are most strongly urged to listen to this one, to both.

It is up to you, whether you want more insight into things, or not. Think.