Among the Georgia RICO 19, there are seven lawyers in total. Three have pleaded guilty to lesser charges and turned State's evidence: Ken Chesbro, Jenna Ellis, and Sydney Powell. Four others remain with not guilty pleas, Rudi Guiliani, John Eastman, Jeffrey Clark, and Ray Smith III.
What are the possible reasons for these guilty pleas? Do they tell us anything about who else might plead guilty?
Among the lawyers, there is a strong incentive to avoid being found guilty of felony charges and risk losing their legal licenses. This trial could easily last 5 months. For those who don’t live in the Atlanta area, just paying for a place to live, let alone a legal defense team, will be prohibitively expensive. Some of these lawyers want to avoid going bankrupt while being able to earn a living afterwards.
Jenna Ellis was a Colorado area lawyer who was hired by the Trump Campaign because she appeared on Faux News as a Constitutional Law expert. It turns out she had no Constitutional Law experience, other than an undergraduate pre-law course she taught, and a self-published book on the subject. She had no history of federal law cases or court appearances. Yet, she was hired by Trump in November 2019 as a senior legal adviser,
to become a member of what she described as an "elite strike force team" that attempted to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This is a classic Trump method of guaranteeing blind loyalty from employees – hire unqualified people to do a job. They will readily follow his orders without question, rather than loose their jobs. They are well aware that they are under-qualified and over-paid.
I would guess that Guiliani, Eastman, and Clark also fit these at least some of these descriptions. Can they afford to plea Not Guilty and then loose their trials?
It is said that Trump is not paying legal expenses for any of those lawyers.
Ray Smith III, a prominent Atlanta area business, real estate, election and probate litigation attorney with a national practice, is a possible exception. He was hired (is still?) by Trump to be his local attorney of record. Smith lives in the Atlanta area, but he also stands to loose quite a lot if he is found guilty of a felony in the RICO trial.
Any thoughts?
There's no doubt that a trial and potential felony conviction/disbarment are strong incentives to plead guilty, provided that the plea deal avoids the more serious possible outcomes (e.g. jail time).
The charges against the various defendants vary quite a bit:
The mugshots and the charges they face, briefly explained.
www.vox.com
I have not read the entire indictment, but I'm sure that the strength of the evidence also varies.
It's unclear what plea deals the DA might have offered to the defendants who have not yet cut a deal. It's possible that the DA is not offering much to some defendants.
Ellis pleaded guilty to a felony, and she may face additional punishment by the Colorado bar:
>>>In March, Ms. Ellis admitted in a sworn statement in Colorado, her home state, that she had knowingly misrepresented the facts in several public claims that widespread voting fraud had occurred and had led to Mr. Trump’s defeat. Those admissions were part of an agreement Ms. Ellis made to accept public censure and settle disciplinary measures brought against her by state bar officials in Colorado.
Though she is still able to practice law in Colorado, at least one additional complaint about her professional conduct is expected.
“We do plan to file a new complaint in Colorado based on the guilty plea, so that the bar can assess the matter in light of her criminal conduct,” said Michael Teter, managing director of the 65 Project, a bipartisan legal watchdog group.<<<
Three lawyers indicted with Donald Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 election results will now cooperate with prosecutors in the racketeering case.
www.nytimes.com
Given that she's still facing disciplinary actions, her plea seems like a mixed bag. My general impression is that she really did have a change of heart in addition to being under the gun financially.
It seems like the pressure on Guiliani, Eastman, Clark, and Smith to cut a deal will be quite extreme, but it's possible that one or more might go down with the Trump ship out of loyalty (Guiliani might be in this camp). It's also possible that they perceive their chances at trial as being good. It can be difficult to assess a case if you're involved in it, and lawyers sometimes convince themselves that their own case is stronger than it really is.
Given his defense in the California bar proceedings, I've wondered if Eastman might be misjudging his odds.
>>>John Eastman defended his actions as one of Donald Trump’s post-election attorneys, arguing Tuesday the disciplinary charges that could cost him his law license are based on inaccurate accusations and that the California State Bar ignored the facts when charging him with ethical and legal violations.<<<
John Eastman defended his actions as one of Donald Trump’s post-election attorneys, arguing Tuesday the disciplinary charges that could cost him his law license are based on inaccurate accusations and that the California State Bar ignored the facts when charging him with ethical and legal...
news.bloomberglaw.com
On the other hand, I'll admit that my own biases might be causing me to think that the DA's case is stronger than it really is. I try to avoid falling into bias, but it is really hard to see it in oneself (at least in my experience, YMMV).
Overall, my thought is that it is really hard to predict what will happen.
