State Bar officials have taken action against John Eastman, the former dean of Chapman University law school, who is referred to as “Co-Conspirator 2” in the federal indictment against former President Donald Trump for election fraud. They have filed a motion to oppose his attempts to delay his disbarment proceedings. State Bar attorney Duncan Carling argues that Eastman’s situation has not changed materially and he has not been charged with a crime. He also emphasizes that it is uncertain whether or when Eastman might face criminal charges.
Carling points out that Eastman has relied on his Fifth Amendment rights in previous investigations related to the Capitol riots and a state election fraud investigation in Georgia. Despite considering a request for a delay before the State Bar Court hearings, Eastman had agreed to proceed. Carling criticizes Eastman’s decision to use the Trump indictment as an excuse to delay the rest of his trial, calling it an opportunistic attempt to postpone the decision in his State Bar case.
Carling also objects to Eastman’s request for a three-month delay in the proceedings, noting that it may take several years for a criminal case to be resolved. He argues that such a delay would prejudice the State Bar and the public interest in resolving the case. Carling further mentions that Special Counsel Jack Smith may intend to move forward with a case against Trump to expedite a trial before the presidential election.
The State Bar seeks to disbar Eastman for promoting baseless legal theories to obstruct the certification of President Joe Biden’s election. Eastman’s attorney, Randall Miller, argues for a stay in the interests of justice, stating that recent developments in the investigation have increased concerns about potential charges against Eastman.
Miller points out that Eastman is identified as “Co-Conspirator 2” in the indictment, but he is not named directly. Miller suggests that the omission of the term “unindicted co-conspirator” and the possibility of superseding indictments raise the potential for Eastman to face criminal charges. He argues that when there are parallel criminal and civil proceedings, the defendant faces a difficult choice between asserting their Fifth Amendment rights and risking the outcome of a non-criminal trial or waiving their constitutional rights against self-incrimination.
Miller also argues that the criminal case should take precedence over the disciplinary proceeding.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
