Thread by @ProfMJCleveland

Conflict of Interest hearing live now in Sussmann case:

2/ Conflict waived. Now on Motion to Strike. Judge couple questions: Being defense has no objection to engaging Sussmann w/ colloque why not just consent motion. Reason for motion-prosecutor wanted to be extra careful to have factual basis and make record.

3/ Prosecutor: Wanted to make crystal clear on record.
Defendant: Wants to guard against this happening again.

4/ Given how much publicity & may have been misinterpreted or misperceived, anything to clarify or correct--Prosecutor: No. If we worry about it, we don't want enter game of correct. Being very careful to facts, law, and court's order. Everything is factual and accurate.

5/ May 16 is trial, discovery, motion to dismiss, this dust up strikes me as a sideshow, if both sides agree, that could have been a consent motion, could have been 20 minutes. As to relevance, circumstances as to how Sussmann acquired, may well go to question

6/ that could go who Sussmann represents and much of that will come out in 404(b) or Motion in Limine, but wasn't necessary to understand potential conflict. I didn't need that ancillary information to get thee.

7/ I don't know why it was in there, don't acscribe ill motive, and much if not all would come out later, and what ever happened has happened, but not going to strike.

8/ and not where defense lacks resources to rebut. Until we swear a jury you have an audience of one, sometimes include things in pleadings to eduate judge, keep in mind pleadings under a microscope and might be viewed by folks. Please be mindful. Understood.

9/9 Gov't perspective: Produced alot of discovery. Most if not all agreement, other all collaborative process.