Post New

“ Update (1345ET): Legal minds are beside themselves at how the judge in the Trump 'hush money' case has instructed jurors to rule - first in what constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called "the coup de grace instruction," Judge Juan Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred - and can disagree on what the crime was among the charges. “ https://www.zerohedge.com/political/jury-begins-de...

It’s all performative. They want their photo of Trump in handcuffs in the orange jumpsuit.

I hope libs understand what they’re doing. They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions. They won’t like what comes next.

“ Update (1345ET): Legal minds are beside themselves at how the judge in the Trump 'hush money' case has instructed jurors to rule - first in what constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called "the coup de grace instruction," Judge Juan Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred - and can disagree on what the crime was among the charges.

Two points:

First, Turley isn't the one quoted in the article you linked referring to the trial as insanity.

Second, the absence of unanimity on the object crime is a settled issue of New York law. Lots of criminal charges have as a predicate that the actions have to have been committed in connection with another crime, and apparently the law in New York generally is that jurors do not need to be unanimous on what the object crime is, merely that the element had been met. This is not unusual - I wasn't able to quickly find the New York state precedent, but here's a link to an analogous decision in federal court, holding that jurors do not need to agree on which predicate crimes a defendant committed in order to reach a unanimous decision, just tat the defendant committed them:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/59148817add7...

hclasvegas: Judge Juan Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred - and can disagree on what the crime was among the charges.

Well, no.

The jury must be unanimous to convict Dementia Don of falsifying business records.

One of the elements that the government has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, is that he falsified those records to commit or conceal another crime. The jury does not have to be unanimous on which underlying crime he was intending to conceal, just that he had the intent to conceal his crime.

Dope1: I hope libs understand what they’re doing. They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions.

The projection of the Trump Cult is monumental.

So, you ready to condemn Dementia Don and argue for his imprisonment for stealing all those top secret documents yet?

Isn’t it very clear who said jt? “ This is absolute insanity," posted Missouri Attorney General Andrew Baily, in response to another Turley observation - namely that the jury will not be given copies of their instructions, but can ask for them to be read again.“ Thanks.

Isn’t it very clear who said jt?

Only if you click through. The thread title is incorrect, since it intimates that Turley said that it was insanity.

It's actually not really all that insane. There's 34 counts, but they're all for the same crime, and based on the same overall fact pattern. They just differ based on which of the otherwise identical documents (the different checks and different receipts). So they're all going to have the same jury instructions.

“ Only if you click through. The thread title is incorrect, since it intimates that Turley said that it was insanity.”. Why do smart people respond to articles they haven’t read and videos they haven’t watched? Bottom line, regardless of the findings, it will help trump. If you are going to go after a previous president who is the parties current candidate for pres the case has to be a lay up, clear and easy to understand. Every credible legal party agrees this wasn’t the right case. They will find him guilty of something, and Trump will rise 1-2 points in the polls, watch. ☮️

If you are going to go after a previous president who is the parties current candidate for pres the case has to be a lay up, clear and easy to understand.

Why? Why should there be a two-tier system of justice, one for famous people/politicians and one for ordinary people? We don't require cases to be a "lay up, clear and easy to understand" when prosecuting ordinary people. Sometimes criminal cases are complicated - we bring charges anyway. Why should Trump be treated any differently?

“ Why should Trump be treated any differently?”. There you go , again, making it u. Where did I say trump should be treated differently? I said a previous president, right? You keep watching msnbc and reading Tribe and I’ll watch cnn, news nation , and read Dersh and Turley and next year we will see who wins on appeal. Meanwhile the majority of American voters have concluded that in the aggregate, Trump sucks less. Well done, this was not an easy task. 🍿☮️

I hope libs understand what they’re doing. They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions. They won’t like what comes next.

You have it backwards. Trump is the one trying to usurp the power of America's institutions--be it religion, science, the courts, the medical community--and turn it to his own instrument to feed his ego with fame and power.

That is creating the lack of trust in America's institutions, because so many people are willing to take him at his pathetic, lying words. It may be too late already. It's hard to see a way from here back to even a semblance of sanity, but hopefully we can find it.

Dope1: I hope libs understand what they’re doing. They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions.

LMAO! Dope, can you really be so clueless as to make a statement like that when YOU support Trump who is destroying trust in America's institutions in every way the can? Just to benefit himself and the country be damned?
OMG, it is a cult.

Where did I say trump should be treated differently?

You said that because of his position as a former president and a major party candidate, his case needed to be a lay up, clear and easy to understand.

But we don't require that for other people. We charge people for complex crimes all the time. We charge people when the facts are complicated, when the case isn't a lay-up, when things aren't easy to understand. So why should it be necessary to have a "lay up" case in order for Trump to face charges.

This isn't about media diet - I've read Turley's writings on the matter, and I think he's simply wrong on a number of points (or more charitably, he's presenting as settled various positions that he's just advocating are the case). As was the article you cited in this thread, claiming that it's "insanity" to not provide written instructions to the jury. Which it would be in some states, of course. Here in Florida, for example, jury instructions are required to be in writing.

But in New York, judges aren't authorized to provide jury instructions in writing. The New York Penal Law only authorizes a very limited number of things to be taken by the jurors into their deliberations, and written jury instructions are not among them. It can be reversible error to give them jury instructions - especially if those jury instructions include the text of a statute, which is not allowed to be sent in with them. So the New York courts have reversed convictions if the judge sends written jury instructions into deliberations, as with People v. Owens:

Unlike the marshaling of evidence — which is statutorily authorized (CPL 300.10), and constitutes error only when an imbalance results in prejudice to defendant (see, People v Culhane, 45 N.Y.2d 757, 758, supra — the distribution of written instructions to the jury is not expressly authorized by law, and error in such submissions cannot be deemed harmless.

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-owens-128

But because media outlets will repeat this nonsense without taking the time to actually check if it's true ("Does New York authorize written jury instructions? Should we check before running this quote?"), a lot of people do come away with an incorrect understanding of what's going on in the court. That might work to the political benefit of Trump, but it's certainly not a reason he should escape prosecution for criminal behavior.

>>Dope1: I hope libs understand what they’re doing. They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions.<<

LMAO! Dope, can you really be so clueless as to make a statement like that when YOU support Trump who is destroying trust in America's institutions in every way the can? Just to benefit himself and the country be damned?
OMG, it is a cult. - ges

--------------

LOL. We have devolved into schoolyard, "I know you are, but what am I?" level of discourse.

albaby, " 99.6%
Data published by the Pew Research Center in 2019 highlighted how federal prosecutors have a 99.6% conviction rate."

What are the more currents rates ? What percent of cases are settled ? Does this seem like a 99.6 % case to you ? Do you believe the average voter and average juror has your background and expertise? You see nothing pollical here , if trump was just another new york putz , nothing would have changed ? Come on man, listen to Carville and most others with credibility ,it isn't working. Carry on, if trump rises in the polls, it isn't working bud, but go ahead and knock yourself out. Good luck.

Legal minds are beside themselves atthe possibility that all their punditry doesn't mean spit.

What's insanity is Trump's clearly psychotic raging, and even more insane is the hook line and sinker swallowing of that swill by the orange cult.

"They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions."

Nobody has destroyed trust in US institutions like Trump's denigration of the government since he began campaigning for office.

Its insanity...

If they can convict Donald Trump for the crimes he committed, they can convict any criminal for the crimes they committed!

LOL

Nobody has destroyed trust in US institutions like Trump's denigration of the government since he began campaigning for office.

And there is that little matter of his trying to overturn a clearly fair election result, and his continuous and constant lying about winning an election he clearly LOST.

But it's the Dems? Give me a break. What a weird carnival-style mirror of a world you MAGAs live in.

What are the more currents rates ? What percent of cases are settled ? Does this seem like a 99.6 % case to you ? Do you believe the average voter and average juror has your background and expertise? You see nothing pollical here , if trump was just another new york putz , nothing would have changed ? Come on man, listen to Carville and most others with credibility ,it isn't working.

This isn't a federal case. Federal prosecutors bring very few cases compared to state courts, and the penalties when they do are massive compared to state crimes....so they have very different outcomes.

Absolutely if Trump was just another NY putz he would have been charged if the prosecutors had evidence that he committed a crime. Because the average NY putz won't have high-priced legal counsel, so it would have ended in a deal - as nearly all criminal charges do.

As for listening to Carville - well, he's not a lawyer, and here are lots of people who have advocated in support of the charges and written about their strength. You don't listen to them, and you've decided they don't have credibility, because they're arguing against the outcome you want. You have decided that this is political, rather than a legitimate criminal prosecution - so you're only going to find credible the people that argue that side of the case.

Which is your prerogative! It's a free country! All I'm doing is pointing out that many of the arguments they make are just...wrong! Claiming that it's "insane" that the judge didn't provide written jury instructions when New York state law doesn't authorize written jury instructions is....well, it's not a great argument. So if those are the folks you believe are the ones with credibility, you might want to broaden your reading on the issue. I've read many (most?) of Turley's comments on the trial, and most of them are not very impressive once you look at them. He writes reasonably well, and he's a strong advocate....but a strong advocate can argue the bad side of an argument well. And I think he's doing that for most of his points, especially about the legal strength of the case.

"If you are going to go after a previous president who is the parties current candidate for pres the case has to be a lay up, clear and easy to understand."

That's an impossible standard to make in the eyes of a confirmation bias seeking cult.

Nothing will meet that criteria to a cult because cult.

They hang on every word the defense makes to satisfy a client that demands fidelity to his fraud.

“ Absolutely if Trump was just another NY putz he would have been charged if the prosecutors had evidence that he committed a crime “. You aren’t thinking this through. If you take Trump out Haley and youngkin, etc would crush Biden Harris. Cuomo , Abrams, and several on cnn aren't Tucker and Hannity bud. I want the truth and the facts nothing more. If you see nothing political in this case I seriously doubt anyone can move you. Next week you can explain why most of the legal scholars are wrong, and there is nothing political to see here. Stay healthy ☮️

The New York Penal Law only authorizes a very limited number of things to be taken by the jurors into their deliberations, and written jury instructions are not among them. It can be reversible error to give them jury instructions - especially if those jury instructions include the text of a statute, which is not allowed to be sent in with them.

--------------------

As an aside, this is one of those peculiarities of the law the vast majority of people don't know and, when informed about it, it seems to make no sense. What is the rationale for not allowing jurors to see a written copy of verbal directions they were just given? What is the rationale for jurors to not have a written copy of the laws cited by the judge as applicable in the case?

As I've been watching coverage of this trial and contemplating how the jury will work to land on a verdict, I've imagined having the text of the charges available to draw a chart on a board and draw lines to specific items all jurors agree upon as ruling in or out a particular fact or charge to know that everything has been covered. To have to do most of that deliberation from memory rather than paper seems tedious and prone to omissions and mistakes.

After seeing that this IS the law in New York State (and probably other states), I would have to assume the purpose of such constraints is to force the jury to raise their hand and obtain "professional" guidance from the judge by formally asking a question, rather than just staring at a legal text in the room and further mis-interpreting it. Certainly, you don't want the jurors google searching a law online because it's too easy to have a keyword search land on a similar but NOT identical / applicable law and drive thinking in an invalid direction.

On the other hand, we have become so conditioned to being able to scroll through something rather than HAVING to listen to someone to get a question answered, it must be a weird dynamic to encounter in such a high-profile situation.


WTH

You aren’t thinking this through. If you take Trump out Haley and youngkin, etc would crush Biden Harris. Cuomo , Abrams, and several on cnn aren't Tucker and Hannity bud.

Except I'm not talking about the politics of this. I'm just trying to get you to understand that the prosecutors have evidence sufficient to bring charges, and that the legal fulminations of Turley and Dershowitz are not very strong arguments.

Plus, again, you're committing a serious error in thinking that a criminal conviction would mean that someone else would be the GOP's nominee. It doesn't work that way - people who have been convicted of a crime are still allowed to run for President. If Trump is convicted, the GOP's nominee would still be Trump. I don't think you're thinking it through, if you think that the trial will have any effect on who the nominee is.

What is the rationale for not allowing jurors to see a written copy of verbal directions they were just given? What is the rationale for jurors to not have a written copy of the laws cited by the judge as applicable in the case?

You're absolutely right. The rationale is that you don't want the jurors getting involved in debating the law, or debating the rules that they're supposed to deliberate under, on their own in the jury room. If they have a legal question, they're supposed to ask the judge - so that the judge can answer it, in open court with both counsel present.

It's not a great rationale. Several states (including Florida) go the complete opposite way - they require written jury instructions. That way there's no misremembering or misstating what the instructions are in the jury room.

But I do understand the general principle, particularly as to statutory text. Sometimes statutes are written in ways that are confusing or admit of different interpretations, and sometimes those interpretations have already been ruled on. So if a statute appears to say "X" instead of "Y," but the state Supreme Court has ruled that actually "Y" is the correct interpretation, you don't want the jurors reading the original statute and forming their own - not the legally correct - conclusions.

While I personally think the "written instructions" rule is the better one, the law is the law. Different states have different rules. So when some blowhard gets up and proclaims that they've been done trials for XX years and they've never seen this happen, but they don't practice in NY, you should take it with a grain of salt when they claim that means the judge has made a mistake or is violating the rules.

“ I don't think you're thinking it through, if you think that the trial will have any effect on who the nominee is.“ If Trump is found guilty on all the charges can he get jail time? Thanks.

If Trump is found guilty on all the charges can he get jail time? Thanks.

Maybe. But it's not a certainty. A first conviction for a Class E felony (the lowest type) that doesn't involve violence very well might result in a non-jail sentence. But since it's a felony, it might involve jail time. Especially since Trump has not shown (and is not likely to show) any contrition for his actions.

But even if he eventually gets a jail sentence, it certainly wouldn't bar him from running for office. Trivially, even he didn't appeal, people who are granted pre-trial release don't get hauled off to prison straight from the courthouse. He wouldn't be sentenced for a few months after the trial, and not required to report to prison until sometime after that.

Trump would certainly appeal, though, and his attorneys will ask that any sentence be stayed until his appeal is reviewed, and that request is likely to be granted. So he'll be able to keep campaigning.

It's worth noting that even if he were imprisoned, he would still be the GOP nominee. He doesn't lose that status unless the GOP changes their rules - and they're not going to.

“ Maybe. But it's not a certainty. “ You really should watch Cuomo. If Geragos, Dersh, Turley, etc need legal direction from you, doesn’t that prove it’s a complicated case for these jurors? Are these lawyers all lightweight pikers with no experience?

But even if he eventually gets a jail sentence, it certainly wouldn't bar him from running for office.


Couldn't Trump be sentenced to 'house arrest' for a meaningful period of time?

Restrict Trump to his primary residence, with an ankle monitor, with allowances for medical visits, and court appearances.

It would be satisfying as hell to see Trump complaining on Truth Social about the unfairness of being trapped in a beachside estate, Mar a Lago, with his wife for a year. Poor Don Poorleone.

And since house arrest would greatly simplify the challenges a State Pen would create, Secret Service would probably prefer it.

Couldn't Trump be sentenced to 'house arrest' for a meaningful period of time?

Restrict Trump to his primary residence, with an ankle monitor, with allowances for medical visits, and court appearances.

If convicted, I do not think anything like that will happen.

If Geragos, Dersh, Turley, etc need legal direction from you, doesn’t that prove it’s a complicated case for these jurors? Are these lawyers all lightweight pikers with no experience?

They're not lightweight pikers, but that doesn't mean their arguments are good. Any more than Laurence Tribe's arguments are good simply because he's not a lightweight piker. You have to actually assess their arguments

As I've pointed out to you several times in this thread, Dershowitz doesn't seem to have informed himself at all about the actual legal claims in the case. I don't think he's even paying much attention to the actual proceedings, rather than what people are saying about the proceedings - there's no way that someone who had actually read the prosecution's case could have misstated their arguments as badly as Dersh did. Turley's a better writer and advocate, but he also doesn't seem to be bothering to look into what the law in New York actually is.

That's the thing about lawyers and the law - you can have two heavyweight non-pikers disagree on what the law is.

Does that mean it's a complicated case for the jurors? Not necessarily. The debate over whether FECA (a federal law) can serve as the object crime for a state business records prosecution can be a very complicated one that legal minds disagree about - but the jurors never have to deal with that legal argument. They're just given instructions that incorporate the judge's ruling. In fact, most of the debates that Dersh and Turley get into are about legal matters that are just not before the jurors.

Couldn't Trump be sentenced to 'house arrest' for a meaningful period of time?

He could, certainly. But that wouldn't prevent him from being the nominee. He'd still be the nominee even if he were confined to Mar-A-Lago. And, of course, it's really unlikely that any sentence will actually be imposed on him until at least his first round of appeals have been concluded.

LOL. We have devolved into schoolyard, "I know you are, but what am I?" level of discourse.

What else do they have?

They’re really just so bad at this. Last time I checked Trump wasn’t running a lawfare campaign against his political enemies.

But maybe that will change. If he’s elected, I say fund the 87,000 IRS agents. I know exactly where to aim them…

But even if he eventually gets a jail sentence, it certainly wouldn't bar him from running for office.

My guess is that if Trump gets convicted, he will be pardoned by Biden. To avoid even the appearance of it having been politically motivated and initiated by Biden.

Kinda like if a member of the highest Court in the land has even the appearance of potential bias in a given case, he/she would naturally recuse him/herself...oh, wait, sorry, never mind.

Amazingly, polling shows that the outcome of the trial makes very little difference in the election.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/guilty-or-no...

In fact, 25 percent of Republicans said they would be even more likely to vote for Trump if he were found guilty by a jury...Narrow slivers of Republicans – 10 percent – and independent voters – 11 percent – said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he is found guilty./i>

"Where did I say trump should be treated differently?"

Wow. You didn't even read your own post Harold. You must be tired. Have a cookie and go to bed.

"You keep watching msnbc and reading Tribe and I’ll watch cnn, news nation , and read Dersh and Turley and next year we will see who wins on appeal. "

LOL You are hilarious. You think that just because you use poor information sources that everyone else does as well.

"Meanwhile the majority of American voters have concluded that in the aggregate, Trump sucks less."

Where have you reached this conclusion? I am willing to bet a lot of money that you are misreading polls that you clearly do not understand?

"If you are going to go after a previous president who is the parties current candidate for pres the case has to be a lay up, clear and easy to understand." Turley



If only Mr. Turley's foolish legal contortionism had found it's way into written law, BEFORE the actions Trump was indicted for occurred … well then we'd have a deplorable law but a functioning legal system.

Honestly, how does Mr. Turley con the press & legal community into taking his legal analysis seriously? What other legal jurisdiction on this planet amends laws for an ongoing case? Perhaps this is where Turley should practice. How far from the pasture of common sense should we let Mr. Turley wander?

Let's be clear; Trump is only a parasite whose existence relies on the dishonesty of enabling sycophants.
If you enforce the written laws without prejudice, we won't need Mr. Turley's Law. Can someone explain the concept of deterrence to the nutty Professor?

CmoreBmore

In fact, 25 percent of Republicans said they would be even more likely to vote for Trump if he were found guilty by a jury...Narrow slivers of Republicans – 10 percent – and independent voters – 11 percent – said they would be less likely to vote for Trump if he is found guilty.

We're not looking for MAGAs, only a teeny amount of MAGAs might change their minds. We're looking for the people who aren't devoted MAGAs and have the ability to change their minds and move them in Biden's direction.

They’re destroying trust in America’s institutions. They won’t like what comes next

What comes next Dope? I'm sure everyone would like to hear what you think happens next.

Post New

Berkshire Hathaway FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.