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

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: EndTime

You can't. Much the same for any AI currently.

So we have to proceed and accept a process in which individual biases may impact the handling and outcome of a trial?

No, we don't have to accept anything of the such. We can always insist on being better.

We can look at this important things first. Incentive, accountability and culpability.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
The jury still has to justify its guilty verdict using the evidence presented.

No it doesn't. The jury doesn't have to justify anything. You made that up.
All the jury has to do is give their verdict. They don't have to explain a damn thing.

originally posted by: chiefsmom
On topic, do we think it will be today?

I figure friday afternoon .. late.

the trial will result in a 20% guilty but non-felony verdict... go home & withdraw from politics or face arrests

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: EndTime

No.

So how can we ever expect a judge or jury of our peers not to involve their individual biases?

For people with morals and integrity, an oath that you swear to is binding.

People with an agenda, not so much.

Is it though? For the majority of the global population I mean.

Police - Protect and Serve
Doctors - Hippocratic Oath
Military - Support and Serve the constitution

In aggregate, do you think the majority of people put their individual self interest ahead of these oaths?

I would argue that adherence and meaning behind taking an oath doesnt mean what it once did for a lot of people.

a reply to: FlyersFan

LOL You guys got it all figured out. Trump is innocent, no matter what. The judge is corrupt. The prosecution is corrupt. The jury is corrupt.

I guess you think that the corrupt jury is just going to go down the list of, what is it, 34 counts(?), and just say, "Guilty", "Guilty", "Guilty", "Guilty"....and on and on, without any thought or discussion!

We'll see soon enough just how wrong you are.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: EndTime

You can't. Much the same for any AI currently.

So we have to proceed and accept a process in which individual biases may impact the handling and outcome of a trial?

No, we don't have to accept anything of the such. We can always insist on being better.

We can look at this important things first. Incentive, accountability and culpability.

So if proven that an individual has been incentivized, or an individual is beholden to another, or involved in a specific plot that would mean they are not impartial?

Does the current judge, the individual, meet this criteria?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I guess you think that the corrupt jury is just going to go down the list of, what is it, 34 counts(?), and just say, "Guilty", "Guilty", "Guilty", "Guilty"....and on and on, without any thought or discussion!

We've been watching you do it for years and years and years.

Do you think you're special in this regard?

a reply to: chiefsmom

Oh, Dear.
If you are not trolling, and actually believe what you are saying, that Trump believes Mother Theresa couldn't beat the charges, because they have been PROVEN??

I've already posted that I still have doubts that the prosecution proved their case. I said that TRUMP thinks the prosecution proved their case, otherwise he wouldn't have said that even "Mother Teressa couldn't beat these charges".

Yes. I believe that Trump believes that the prosecution proved their case.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You are deflecting.

YOU said that the jury has to justify their verdict.

The TRUTH is that they do not. All they do is give a verdict. They do not have to explain it.

You were wrong.

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Whose "we", and what do you mean by "special"?

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: EndTime

You can't. Much the same for any AI currently.

So we have to proceed and accept a process in which individual biases may impact the handling and outcome of a trial?

No, we don't have to accept anything of the such. We can always insist on being better.

We can look at this important things first. Incentive, accountability and culpability.

So if proven that an individual has been incentivized, or an individual is beholden to another, or involved in a specific plot that would disqualify them impartiality?

Does the current judge, the individual, meet this criteria?

I believe so. Before the trial via his daughter and during the trial via his omittance of witnesses that are critical to the evidence of the charges.

a reply to: FlyersFan

YOU said that the jury has to justify their verdict.

Yes, they do. It's part of the process, as they go down the list of charges, review and discuss the evidence presented and vote on each charge. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Haven't you ever been on jury?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes, they do. It's part of the process, as they go down the list of charges, review and discuss the evidence presented and vote on each charge. Wash, rinse, repeat.

They don't have to justify anything. They vote.
They can vote anyway they want and for any reason.
They don't have to justify their vote to anyone.
They don't have to explain themselves to anyone.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: EndTime

You can't. Much the same for any AI currently.

So we have to proceed and accept a process in which individual biases may impact the handling and outcome of a trial?

No, we don't have to accept anything of the such. We can always insist on being better.

We can look at this important things first. Incentive, accountability and culpability.

So if proven that an individual has been incentivized, or an individual is beholden to another, or involved in a specific plot that would disqualify them impartiality?

Does the current judge, the individual, meet this criteria?

I believe so. Before the trial via his daughter and during the trial via his omittance of witnesses that are critical to the evidence of the charges.

His daughter is certainly not him. So can we can really say her beliefs and actions contribute to any biases that he has an individual? I would say there can be wildly different beliefs within a family.

How do we separate perceived omittance between those are legally and procedurally grounded versus those that may stem from some form of biases. A criminal may want to omit the physical evidence of their crime, but it does not make it a valid reason.

a reply to: FlyersFan

They don't have to justify their vote to anyone.
They don't have to explain themselves to anyone.

Yes they do, to each other. Or, do you think that they're so corrupt that they'll just agree to go down the list and vote "guilty" on all 30 something charges without any discussion at all?

There are 12 jurors, you know. 12 Jurors that have to all agree to convict, or not, on each of the 30 something charges.

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp

originally posted by: EndTime

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: EndTime

You can't. Much the same for any AI currently.

So we have to proceed and accept a process in which individual biases may impact the handling and outcome of a trial?

No, we don't have to accept anything of the such. We can always insist on being better.

We can look at this important things first. Incentive, accountability and culpability.

So if proven that an individual has been incentivized, or an individual is beholden to another, or involved in a specific plot that would disqualify them impartiality?

Does the current judge, the individual, meet this criteria?

I believe so. Before the trial via his daughter and during the trial via his omittance of witnesses that are critical to the evidence of the charges.

His daughter is certainly not him. So can we can really say her beliefs and actions contribute to any biases that he has an individual? I would say there can be wildly different beliefs within a family.

How do we separate perceived omittance between those are legally and procedurally grounded versus those that may stem from some form of biases. A criminal may want to omit the physical evidence of their crime, but it does not make it a valid reason.

The rules of conduct for judges in New York are very clear.
Anything within 6 degrees of relationship to the judge is a no go.
Merchan’s daughter is 1 degree.

“(C) The "degree of relationship" is calculated according to the civil law system. That is, where the judge and the party are in the same line of descent, degree is ascertained by ascending or descending from the judge to the party, counting a degree for each person, including the party but excluding the judge. Where the judge and the party are in different lines of descent, degree is ascertained by ascending from the judge to the common ancestor, and descending to the party, counting a degree for each person in both lines, including the common ancestor and the party but excluding the judge. The following persons are relatives within the fourth degree of relationship: great-grandparent, grandparent, parent, uncle, aunt, brother, sister, first cousin, child, grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew or niece. The sixth degree of relationship includes second cousins.”

Section 100
ww2.nycourts.gov...

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Yes they do, to each other.

No they do not. They do not have to justify their verdict to anyone ... not to the judge, not to the foreman, not to each other. There is no one over them deciding if they have voted thoughtfully or correctly.

Or, do you think that they're so corrupt that they'll just agree to go down the list and vote "guilty" on all 30 something charges without any discussion at all?

They very well could if they want to. Or they can discuss it until the cows come home. But the bottom line is that they do NOT have to justify their verdict with anyone.

There are 12 jurors, you know. 12 Jurors that have to all agree to convict, or not, on each of the 30 something charges.

Incorrect. They do not 'have to all agree to convict, or not'.
They don't have to agree on anything. They just have to vote. Period.

a reply to: FlyersFan

No they do not. They do not have to justify their verdict to anyone ... not to the judge, not to the foreman, not to each other. There is no one over them deciding if they have voted thoughtfully or correctly.

Sigh. I guess you've never served on a jury.

They have each other. That's the way the jury system works. There are 30 something counts that the jury, all 12 of them, must all agree on in order to convict. They are obligated, by law, to discuss and to try and find agreement, so as to avoid a hung jury, on all counts.

You're assuming that the jury is so corrupt that they will not discuss any of the evidence and just unanimously find Trump guilty on all 30 something counts.

You're hilarious!

I'll be surprised it they agree on even one!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

90 some charges across 3 states and DC against one person. That person who happens to be the direct political opposition to the entities charging him.

Your appeal to normalcy bias is not going to land.