as a general rule, the guy in the video does a good job o' covering basics.
but...
couple quibbles... or maybe additions.
1) the kinda notes taken by trump attorney 1 (corcoran) were atypical.
2) christina bob gets only the most brief mention in the video.
for decades we took copious notes. is indeed an essential practice to protect client and to protect self. however, memorialize exact comments and gestures o' a client in the manner corcoran did were not an effort to advance trump's case and to make certain corcoran's memory could be suitable refreshed in the future regarding pivotal questions o' law and fact when advancing trump's interests. trump attorney 1 were taking the kinda notes most lawyers need never consider, 'cause were obvious corcoran weren't memorializing just to make sure a proper record o' happenings took place but rather were meant to insulate him from possible future prosecution. corcoran's note taking were so outside the scope o' normal note taking and am thinking such shoulda' been mentioned.
also, and perhaps this is the kinda thing you are more likely to recognize only if you has witnessed more than a few trials and are knowing how attorneys ordinary behave, but the admitted brief mention o' trump attorney 3 in the indictment is disproportionate important. the legaleagle guy failed to describe the significance o' trump attorney 1 not signing off on the june 3, 2022 certification that trump were in compliance with the grand jury subpoena to be handing over all documents with classified markings. bobb, trump attorney 3, made the certification 'cause trump attorney 1 refused to do so. after corcoran searched for remaining documents with classified markings and he sealed the documents he found in a redweld folder, he refused to sign the certification.
https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2023/06/trump-indictment.pdf
am highly recommending reading pp 21-26 if nothing else. those pages illustrate the clumsy shell game nauta and trump alleged engaged in to hide documents from trump attorney 1. in spite o' being the attorney who conducted the search for documents, corcoran called bobb to act as custodian o' documents and to sign the certification regarding the search.
...
corcoran is gonna eventual be called as a prosecution witness and he is gonna need testify 'bout his unusual note taking as well as his refusal to certify the search he completed. explain why he took unusual notes and refused to sign is gonna be memorable. noteworthy.
side note: have seen tv lawyers mention that judge aileen cannon could throw out corcoran's testimony as inadmissible. false. before corcoran testified in front o' the grand jury there were already a hearing insofar as admissibility and aileen cannon is stuck with that ruling. IF trump is found guilty, then am certain his team is gonna appeal the conviction based at least in part o' the decision to pierce attorney-client privilege, so even if there is a conviction o' trump the story won't end immediate; a nightmare for a future date. however, am not seeing any way judge cannon could exclude corcoran testimony, and am thinking corcoran will be extreme compelling for the prosecution.
regardless, legaleagle did a better than fair job o' explaining. thanks for the link.
HA! Good Fun!