In a recent defamation case, it was seen that the jury's focus was not to determine if defamation occurred, as that fact was already established. Instead, the trial is one of damages assessment; the jury has to determine if the accused made untrue, harmful statements, and if he committed these acts knowingly, causing damage to the plaintiffs.
The findings revealed that these two aspects of the case — the occurrence of the defamatory statements and the wrongful accusations that the plaintiffs cheated — have been resolved. The jury is to now ascertain the extent of harm caused and the corresponding compensation.
The subject of the case may take the stand, potentially creating problems for the defense, given similar ongoing RICO cases in Georgia involving allegations of election fraud. The trial judge has already explicitly ruled out protesting against the existing findings of the defamation case, possibly affecting the RICO case.
Intriguingly, despite the ongoing trial, the accused has maintained his stances outside of the courtroom causing a possibility of contempt of court. He reiterated that he stood by his previous statements insisting they were truthful.
The trial also emphasizes the need for a connection between internet postings related to the case, number of views, and the nexus they signify. Given the propensity for heated exchanges in the courtroom, the defense needs to tread carefully, lest there should be any damning admissions.
In related news, Donald Trump's federal election case remains in pause as the question of presidential immunity continues under review. However, a potentially significant development was the Supreme Court's decision to hear a case on the applicability of the obstruction of Congress charge against January 6th defendants. This decision could impact the federal case against the former president. The immunity issue and obstruction of Congress case could potentially delay this case, and we might not witness a trial before the election.