Lauro Likens Trump To Infamous Case Of Black Men Railroaded Into Prison Without Due Process

You recall recently that John Lauro, one of Donald Trump’s many attorneys, was complaining to Judge Tanya Chutkan that he wouldn’t have time to prepare a defense by March of 2024. Trump himself had complained that the evidence “was as high as the Washington Monument,” when he wasn’t complaining that the January 6 Committee had in fact destroyed the evidence.

If you thought that was ridiculous and/or desperate, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Yahoo News:

When former President Donald Trump’s attorneys sought to push the ex-president’s federal election interference trial to April 2026, they cited the landmark Supreme Court case regarding the infamous convictions of the “Scottsboro Boys” — nine young Black men falsly accused of raping two white women.

In the 1932 decision, Powell v. Alabama, the court’s ruling guaranteed the right of a defendant to “reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel.”

The Scottsboro case attracted widespread attention. The men were swiftly arrested, tried, and sentenced within weeks, with hardly had any opportunity to speak with their attorneys before their convictions.

As a result of Powell, the men had their convictions reversed — but the effects of the accusations didn’t go away. Collectively, the men had spent decades in prison. By 1950, some battled declining health and violence. One of the men died by suicide.

The Scottsboro Boys case was a To Kill A Mockingbird level of case and almost a hundred years ago on top of it. That a mega wealthy (at least on paper) white man who incited a riot would claim these two cases were similar is laughable. And laugh they did, legal scholars to be precise.

“I have seen many cases unduly delayed because a defendant lacks adequate representation or cannot properly review discovery because they are detained,” the judge [Chutkan]  said. “That is not the case here.”

Chutkan said that Trump — who has not been jailed for any extensive period of time — had a “profoundly different” situation that what was outlined in Powell.

Gee, ya think? And Lauro not only did this with a straight face, he doubled down on doing it.

Dehlia Umunna, a professor at Harvard Law School, recently told The Washington Post that it was “unbelievably juvenile” for the Trump team to cite the Scottsboro case.

“The Supreme Court held that there was an explicit denial of due process because the Scottsboro defendants were not afforded reasonable time and opportunity to procure counsel,” she told the newspaper. “That is not the case with defendant Trump. His actions leading to these charges occurred over two years ago, and he has several lawyers representing him.”

Kenneth W. Mack, a professor of law and an affiliate professor of history at Harvard University, told The Post that the Scottsboro case is “one of the landmarks of American law.”

“It is hard to believe that Trump’s legal team actually thought that citing it would be persuasive for this judge, or for any subsequent judges who will rule on appeals after the trial is over,” he said.

During a CNN interview last week, Trump attorney John Lauro sought to cut through the criticism of the Scottsboro citation, arguing that Powell “is routinely cited in legal briefs and in Supreme Court decisions regarding the right of counsel.”

“So we were ethically required to cite to that case and bring the court’s attention to the holding and the legal principles that are set forth in Powell v. Alabama,” he said. “What we didn’t do in any way in our briefing was suggest that there are any parallels back to the factual circumstances of the Powell case with President Trump’s case.”

Let me see if I understand this: Lauro’s got a set of boilerplate cases that he cites to, whether they’re applicable or not. Is that it? Because the legal principles in Powell are based on the factual circumstances of that case and if you don’t have similar factual circumstances, you can’t cite to Powell. It’s what they call “attenuated” to cite to a case that far off point, when ludicrous is really the proper descriptor.

Lauro seems hellbent on tanking his own legal career. I hope that Trump is paying him enough money to where he doesn’t have to work much, because I don’t think he’s going to be getting a lot of work after this. I see the name Lauro as being synonymous with mud in years to come.

And of course, Trump is photographed daily on the golf course. Isn’t that odd behavior from a man who is so under the gun to prepare for a trial at law — four of them, as a matter of fact — that his lawyer is complaining about the fact in court? Oh wait, FIVE trials, there’s that pesky think with E. Jean Carroll in New York, again, in January.

Criming just isn’t what it used to be. And wait till we get to the punishment portion of this legal feast, Donald. That’s a dish you have not yet tasted, and it will be accompanied by revenge, which as you know, is served cold.