Guilty-NOT Guilty-Hung Jury---Last Chance to Make Your NY v. Trump Verdict Prediction

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Well , I bet Stormy Thinks it will be Hung . I Agree ....

a reply to: YourFaceAgain

Can you please point out a single time Biden respected the Supreme Court or Constitution through his actions? I can give you dozen examples to the contrary.

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: CarlLaFong

There’s almost no way it’s going to be not guilty, the defense haven’t even seriously argued for a not guilty verdict, since they really don’t have anything to work with.

Way to much evidence against Trump to indicate he knew and helped plan the payments as ‘legal fees’. But there’s a good chance there will be a rogue jury or two who’ll say it wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt… so either guilty or hung jury.

WTF trial have you been watching?

Even commentators on CNN. MSNBC etc. are saying the case is far from a slam dunk and the prosecution has barely mustered a coherent case.

Oh how stupid of me…I forgot that you are paid to say the exact opposite of what the facts are.

a reply to: RickyD

So far as I've heard, the jury instructions basically say that the jurors don't have to agree on what crime Trump committed in order to find him guilty. I haven't seen that actually confirmed per se, but that's what I'm hearing.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Well , I bet Stormy Thinks it will be Hung . I Agree ....

Who would touch Blonde Lurch anyways

a reply to: JadedGhost

The prosecution never stated the crime.

LOL
Donald Trump just said, on live TV, that "Mother Teresa couldn't beat these charges!".

Sounds like he thinks he's going to be found guilty.

They already announced it during jury selection.

Guilty on all counts…

a reply to: CarlLaFong

It comes down to who the jury believes based on the evidence presented, does it not?


The jury seated for the trial, regardless of their perceived "leanings", is the product of both the prosecution and the defense, neither should be claiming bias, since both determined the make up of the jury.

That is the system.


So it comes down to whether or not the prosecution has proved their case to the satisfaction of the jury.


Or, from a different perspective, whether the defense has been successful in refuting a significant enough amount of the prosecution's evidence to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.


That, also, is the system.



The thing is, as I have listened to the reports coming out of the trial these past weeks, it seems Trump's defense team has spent most (if not all) of its time refuting the character, and/or motives, of the prosecution's witnesses; not the prosecution's evidence. The phone transcripts, the bank records, the details of the tryst which Trump claims never happened, etc..


If I were a jury member, those are the things that I would find most persuasive, and potentially damning. I'd be looking, always, first, for the "smoking gun", so to speak. Whether a witness is "of good character" or not matters little if the evidence they provide cannot (or is not) assailable.


I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.


In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

Did they ever actually list and define the "Changes" ?? 🤓

Hung Jury. There will be at least one bad faith activist juror who votes to convict based on their hurt feelings because MSNBC said he made mean tweets.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.


In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

I agree.

The witnesses lied is not much of a defense.

a reply to: Annee

I am stating a fact.

In my era fathers and daughters taking showers together was not unusual.

Times change.

I do not talk about Biden on ATS.

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

Let's all speculate now what -- "at a YOUNG AGE" means.

Isn't it interesting -- that part seems to be left out of previous conversations.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

"Donald J Trump you have been found guilty of the charges brought by this court, and it is now my duty to pass sentence.

You are an habitual criminal, who accepts arrest as an occupational hazard, and presumably accepts imprisonment in the same casual manner. We therefore feel constrained to commit you to the maximum term allowed for these offences: you will go to prison for five years."

***Repurposed intro to Porridge TV series.****

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.


In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

I agree.

The witnesses lied is not much of a defense.

Of course you would believe convicted, pathological liars with delusions of grandeur.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

The jury was definitely more engaged by Steinglass' summation than they were Blanche's despite being over twice as long.

The fact that Trump's lawyers never really addressed Exhibit 36 could prove to be their undoing. That and calling Costello to the stand.

a reply to: RazorV66

Of course you would believe convicted, pathological liars with delusions of grandeur.

Talking about Trump there , right ?

originally posted by: SomeStupidName

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SomeStupidName

It won't be a law.

It'll be an Executive Order signed by Biden.

Written in hooker pee?

Signed BY a hooker IN Biden's pee.

Judge: Jurors don't have to agree on what the actual crime is.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SomeStupidName

It won't be a law.

It'll be an Executive Order signed by Biden.

Notarized by Hakeem Jeffries 😊

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: RazorV66

Of course you would believe convicted, pathological liars with delusions of grandeur.

Talking about Trump there , right ?

Cohen but you already knew that.

The lawyer that thought he would be Attorney General.