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

a reply to: Vermilion

So, if a judge had a daughter that was a Girl Scout, and had purchased Girl Scout Cookies, and now has a case involving a Campfire Girls, you're saying that the judge would have recuse himself because Girl Scouts and Campfire Girls compete against each other?

31 pages of nothing but the same ole crap.


I have refrained from commenting until the verdict is in. Speculating and spitballing is a lot of fun but it ultimately means diddly squat in the grand scheme of things.

originally posted by: Vermilion

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...

Does this not apply to the defendant?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It actually matters a lot. Thinking you'll be convicted because of the evidence is not even remotely close to the same as thinking you'll be convicted because of corruption. One is conviction by justice. The other is conviction by corruption. You do understand the difference, right?

Last I checked, the jury does not have to justify their guilty verdict. All they have to do is return a verdict. I may be wrong on that, but I've never heard of a jury decision being scrutinized in that way. Doesn't mean it isn't a thing.

Even beyond that, the instructions from the judge make it so that they don't even need to agree on what crime was committed. That totally eliminates the need for an evidentiary foundation for a guilty verdict.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Have you ever heard of a strawman argument? Because that was one of the most clear cut examples of a strawman argument that I have ever seen in my life.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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.

Incorrect.

They discuss the case in their little jury room. But they are NOT obligated to agree on anything and they do NOT have to justify how they vote to each other or anyone else. They do NOT have to agree with each other. They can vote however they wish to answering to NO ONE.

While it takes all 12 for a conviction there is NO 'obligation by law' to avoid a hung jury and come to agreement.

Your statement that they have to justify their vote is poppycock. They answer to no one, and most certainly not to each other. That's ridiculous.

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?

Yep!
I was once in an accident that wasn't my fault. The lady involved sued me for bodily injury, while conference with my lawyer he asked me if she was attractive...she most definitely was as that could sway a juries finding or even a judges in a simple plea deal.
Well she wasn't attractive enough and ended up getting the case thrown out and having to pay my attorney fees.
Yes bias is everywhere

originally posted by: MrGashler
Last I checked, the jury does not have to justify their guilty verdict. All they have to do is return a verdict. I may be wrong on that, ....

You are correct. The jury does not have to justify their verdict, no matter how they vote. If they vote guilty or not guilty .. doesn't matter .. they don't have to justify it and they answer to no one for their verdict, not to the judge, not to the foreman, not to each other. To NO ONE.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The are 3 charges for each month. Invoice. Check. Entry.

If you find him guilty for one, you are guilty for all so yes, that is what is happening.

a reply to: MrGashler

I understand that Trump pretends to think that anyone who opposes him is corrupt. I understand that he and his followers believe that Braggs is corrupt, the evidence being he filed a case against Trump. The prosecution is corrupt, because they crafted a case that backs Braggs corrupt assertions.

Trump is claiming that the corruption is so complete that even Mother Teressa couldn't escape conviction. He's also pointing fingers at a bias jury, simply because they reside in the State of New York, because New York votes blue. They're so bias that they will believe the evidence, and it's the evidence that will ultimately convict Trump.

I understand that Trump's minions are preemptively making excuses, as is Donald Trump himself, for his conviction, blaming a corrupt judge, prosecutor and even claiming that the jury is corrupt too! LOL

As for me, I'll be surprised if this jury finds Trum guilty on any of the felony counts.

Trump is having fun trolling the dipsh!t judge LOL

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: MrGashler
Last I checked, the jury does not have to justify their guilty verdict. All they have to do is return a verdict. I may be wrong on that, ....

You are correct. The jury does not have to justify their verdict, no matter how they vote. If they vote guilty or not guilty .. doesn't matter .. they don't have to justify it and they answer to no one for their verdict, not to the judge, not to the foreman, not to each other. To NO ONE.

LOL

Well that settles it then! The jury is corrupt!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
... I understand that he and his followers believe that Braggs is corrupt, ...

I'm not a Trump follower and I say that Bragg is corrupt (as evidenced by the fact that no one touched this case before him and that he elevated dead misdemeanors to active felony levels), and the (Biden donating) Judge is biased ... and the jury is a stink'n mess.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Who else in the current or past political landscape is being held to the same legal standard?


Or are you going to tell us that no one is as corrupt as Trump in political history?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Which was after he refused to prosecute until Matthew Colangelo came from the DoJ....

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
LOL
Well that settles it then! The jury is corrupt!

Deflection.
You falsely stated that the Jury has to justify their verdict.
They do not. You were wrong. That's the bottom line.

a reply to: EndTime

(E) Disqualification.
(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where:

(d) the judge knows that the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(iii) has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;
(e) The judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the fourth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person, is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding or is likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. Where the judge knows the relationship to be within the second degree, (i) the judge must disqualify him/herself without the possibility of remittal if such person personally appears in the courtroom during the proceeding or is likely to do so, but (ii) may permit remittal of disqualification provided such person remains permanently absent from the courtroom.” ww2.nycourts.gov...

Judge Merchan’s daughter is 1 degree.
It doesn’t get any more clear than this.
It is blatant impropriety.

a reply to: Vermilion

... and then there's the whole fact that the judge donated to the Biden presidential campaign in 2020.

a reply to: FlyersFan

But they are NOT obligated to agree on anything and they do NOT have to justify how they vote to each other or anyone else.

That's not what I said.

An Allen charge, also referred to as dynamite or hammer charges, refer to jury instructions given to a hung jury — or a jury that is unable to reach a consensus — urging them to agree upon a verdict, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
..........
An Allen charge asks jurors in the minority to consider the reasonableness of their views and to take the views of other jurors into account with a disposition toward being convinced.

www.courier-journal.com...

a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

Who else in the current or past political landscape is being held to the same legal standard?

John Edwards.