So judge gave jury
- Thread starter 55dawg
- Start date
There are many examples in US law where a jury can determine guilt without having to agree on all of the components that determine guilt. This is not some arcane legal theory. It’s applied every day.
AI warning…
In legal proceedings, a guilty verdict can sometimes be reached even if the jury does not unanimously agree on all the underlying facts. This can happen in cases involving:
1. **General Verdicts**: Juries may deliver a general verdict of guilty without needing to agree on the specific details of how the crime was committed. For example, in a murder case, jurors might disagree on the exact sequence of events but still agree that the defendant is guilty of murder.
2. **Alternative Means**: Some criminal statutes list multiple ways in which an offense can be committed. If the law permits, jurors can find a defendant guilty even if they disagree on which specific act the defendant committed, as long as all jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed one of the acts listed in the statute.
3. **Conspiracy Charges**: In conspiracy cases, jurors might disagree on the precise details of the conspiracy, such as the roles of various conspirators or the exact acts committed. However, they can still reach a guilty verdict if they all agree that the defendant participated in a conspiracy.
4. **Aiding and Abetting**: In cases involving aiding and abetting, jurors might not agree on the exact manner in which the defendant assisted the principal offender but can still conclude that the defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting the crime.
5. **Felony Murder**: In felony murder cases, jurors might not need to agree on the specific felony that led to the murder. As long as they all agree that the defendant committed a felony that resulted in a death, they can find the defendant guilty of felony murder.
These examples illustrate how the legal system allows for flexibility in reaching a guilty verdict even when there is not complete agreement on all the factual details among jurors.
We aren’t talking different components. We are talking different charges.
Please answer the questions. He is getting convicted most likely for a relationship with a porn star, whose story has now changed publicly for the fifth time. Including in 2016 when she came forward on the bill Mahre show. She came forward for a cash grab. And this is what we are glorifying from the left. That is the basics of this case.
Kckd. Trump has certainly done things along the way to deserve this. He is a terrible human being who has screwed over thousands in business in his lifetime. That being said, 90 mill to a lady who named her cat and had 21 other sexual assault allegations unproven. She didn’t even remember if she had sex with him. 450 million for a loan that was in good standing for possibly embellishing property values. Where the judge valued mar o largo at 17 million. He bought delapitaded for 10 million in 1985. Right in the heart of palm beach. Where land is ridiculous to come by these days. And now a misdemeanor never turned into a felony, tried to a judge who hates him, whose daughter makes money of this, and a da who ran on indicting Trump. About a payoff to a porn star who was pushed to come forward by democrats, to hurt him politically in 2016. A little perspective and less tds may go a long way for you. I love some saying this would only happen to Trump. Really?
Question: So how do you as a defendant defend yourself against all these charges (tax fraud, federal election violations, etc) when zero mention of these issues are argued by the prosecution during the trial? Kind of the point of how our justice system works. You make a charge and then allow the defense to defend.
Can you, in a brief statement summarize exactly what trump is charged with and how you derive a guilty verdict? Details please. With evidence.
This is not a murder case at least the last I heard it wasn’t but I am so confused now I don’t know.
White color cases are often complex, so I reject the request to simplify the charges. They are complex.
"Running for public office brings with it the responsibility of filing accurate campaign finance reports. The indictment charges that when Trump allegedly caused 34 checks, invoices, and ledger entries to be falsely characterized as legal expenses, he intended to conceal violations of state and federal campaign finance laws as well as tax laws. New York law makes it a crime to conspire to promote or prevent the election of a candidate by illegal means. Federal law prohibits corporate contributions, like the one made by AMI, and limits the amount of individual contributions to $2,700, far below the $130,000 allegedly made by Cohen. When Trump reimbursed Cohen, he allegedly falsely characterized the payments as income, resulting in the tax charge."
Donald Trump's Hush-Money Trial Is a Referendum on Truth
Barbara McQuade explores how the rule of law will be tested as the jury begins to decide Trump’s criminal trial.
I thought the states had no jurisdiction over campaign finance laws.White color cases are often complex, so I reject the request to simplify the charges. They are complex.
"Running for public office brings with it the responsibility of filing accurate campaign finance reports. The indictment charges that when Trump allegedly caused 34 checks, invoices, and ledger entries to be falsely characterized as legal expenses, he intended to conceal violations of state and federal campaign finance laws as well as tax laws. New York law makes it a crime to conspire to promote or prevent the election of a candidate by illegal means. Federal law prohibits corporate contributions, like the one made by AMI, and limits the amount of individual contributions to $2,700, far below the $130,000 allegedly made by Cohen. When Trump reimbursed Cohen, he allegedly falsely characterized the payments as income, resulting in the tax charge."
Donald Trump's Hush-Money Trial Is a Referendum on Truth
Barbara McQuade explores how the rule of law will be tested as the jury begins to decide Trump’s criminal trial.time.com
judge certainly rejected defenses attempt to provide the ultimate testimony regarding federal election laws
So now recusals for the appearance of bias happen after the fact? That’s a new one.
Check out what Trump posted an hour ago. You may not acknowledge what it means but Trump knows.
as a practicing criminal defense attorney, this thread is hilarious
Dunning-Kruger in real time
Dunning-Kruger in real time
What about Biden ignoring the constitution and SCOTUS with the college tuition forgiveness. He said it out loud. That really shows a great concern for the balance of powers between the 3 branches. Not to mention the use of OSHA as well.
You are making assumptions about the judges before anything has gone before them. I have seen many times where they have ruled against the pre conceived notions every one had. You are assuming guilt from the start.
if they were Republican sure, Democrat no.
But going forward it will be a free for all. Sadly those who are trying to tear us apart are succeeding.
Man excuse me I am tired of you trying to make this case a legal trial. This is a Soros appointed prosecutor who campaigned on getting Trump. A picked Judge who hated Trump and his daughter is getting rich with Trump getting convicted. Also you have this crooked judge who hates Trump gets to pick a jury of people who are radical Democrats and I might add two of the jurors were lib lawyers who were swaying the jury to vote like them. Man this is laughable and a dumb clown could see what’s going on here. I think you libs will see the people speak in November.White color cases are often complex, so I reject the request to simplify the charges. They are complex.
"Running for public office brings with it the responsibility of filing accurate campaign finance reports. The indictment charges that when Trump allegedly caused 34 checks, invoices, and ledger entries to be falsely characterized as legal expenses, he intended to conceal violations of state and federal campaign finance laws as well as tax laws. New York law makes it a crime to conspire to promote or prevent the election of a candidate by illegal means. Federal law prohibits corporate contributions, like the one made by AMI, and limits the amount of individual contributions to $2,700, far below the $130,000 allegedly made by Cohen. When Trump reimbursed Cohen, he allegedly falsely characterized the payments as income, resulting in the tax charge."
Donald Trump's Hush-Money Trial Is a Referendum on Truth
Barbara McQuade explores how the rule of law will be tested as the jury begins to decide Trump’s criminal trial.
the judge rigged the jury pool?
and Trump's lawyers weren't present at voir dire?
Judge must be crazy
I am curious for your take. Judge’s daughter will profit from this verdict. Conflict of interest? I always defer to lawyers in a courtroom. I just figured this was common sense. I have no takes in this thread about how the courtroom was handled.
Last edited:
The burough voted only 6% for Trump in 2020. How difficult is it for the persecution to eliminate the 1 in 16.67 who might not be a democRAT?
Attorneys are scumbag liars. Case in point.
most corrupt thing I have ever witnessed in American Politics and government. Basically, the judge said the jury had to be unanimous on un-unanimity. Unheard of!!!!
Odumbo started this mess when he politicized the DOJ against Trump. He started this mess and made Biden keep doing the same thing. They made a hating Trump appointment for DOJ director.
Get over it. He is now a convicted felon as he should be. If you think supporting a convicted criminal for president is the right thing then I truly feel sorry for you.
the jury pool is not something up for debate. My clients in certain counties get worse outcomes than others because of the makeup of the county’s jury pool. That’s how the 6th amendment works.
That’s not correct and a misstatement of the law.
The jury has to be unanimous on both steps of the case. The falsifying of records and the “in furtherance of a crime”. If they came back deadlocked, it wouldn’t have been a conviction.
The jury is allowed to not be unanimous on which crime was in furtherance of as that is not an essential element of the offense.
I don’t think it’s a conflict. Hell, a buddy of mine was running against a sitting judge two weeks ago and had a trial in her courtroom. Not to mention Merchan apparently got an advisory ruling from the State who said there is no conflict. Had there been, he would’ve recused. Without something more, I’m not convinced it meets the standsrd
You could also argue that an acquittal would rack up as much/more fundraising for Democrats so maybe it would’ve been better with a not guilty? I don’t know.
You are wrong about jury selection.
Beyond that, you didn’t say a word about the facts of the case and why after seven weeks the jury got it wrong.
This is the truth. Vince Dooley regarding the pass, once stated three things could happen and that two of them were bad. The bad was incomplete and intercepted pass. A completed pass was the only good thing. For Trump three things could happen and two of them would be good. The good were not guilty and a hung jury. The bad thing was a guilty verdict. With the odds in his favor, Trump lost. Guilty on all 34 counts. Just like the odds, no one had to pick what misdemeanor to use. He was guilty of all of them. So said a jury of his peers. Facts and justice matters.
If you don’t like the Manhattan jury pool, don’t commit crimes in Manhattan.
I’m guessing some business people are going to take that advice, which will expedite NYC’s decline.
Fair enough. Just figured with him also donating heavily to Biden and Hillary, this would be an issue. It has to come up on appeal. Why even take the chance. I appreciate the answer.
The answer is don’t live or do business in manhattan. Since 2020, 97,000 have made that decision
I certainly could be wrong, but I don’t think we have enough to recuse.
The facts and jury have a lot more to do with trials than the judge, in my experience. A lot of issues that have gotten air time I agree with (not letting the jury have the printed instructions, charging the jury just once, etc) but that’s also been my experience in GA as a prosecutor and defense attorney
I wish a lot of the administration side of jury trials were changed because it’s just asking a lot of the panel and there’s a ton on the line. Even with a misdemeanor trial you’re potentially taking someone’s freedom, so we gotta make sure it gets done in both a fair and straightforward way for the jury
Which case? The jury here had to be unanimous as to their verdicts, which is what happened
