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

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: Vermilion

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

That’s really a non issue.
Judges are allowed to donate to anybody they like. They have rights too.
It’s the judge and his daughter impropriety which should be an immediate disqualification.
This specific judge has also presided over the Bannon AND the Weisselberg trials.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
That's not what I said. /

Four times, on pages 30 and 31, you FALSELY said that the jury has to justify their verdict.

You clarified and claimed they have to justify the verdict to each other.

"The jury still has to justify its guilty verdict using the evidence presented."

"Yes they do, to each other. "

"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 have each other."

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I've tried. I really have.

I've tried to explain to you that what you think is coming entirely from your own perceptions and not what was actually said. I've tried to explain to you that there is actually a conceptual difference between what you've stated Trump thinks vs what he's actually said he thinks. You continue to either dance around the point or just ignore it outright.

Personally, I'm glad that you'll be surprised if the jury returns a guilty verdict. I fully expect them to return a guilty verdict, and it isn't because I think the jury is corrupt. The jury instructions provided by the judge don't require a unanimous agreement on the part of this trial that actually makes the charge a felony in order to convict. You may not think it, but that is a monumental issue and if there's a conviction that will likely be what gives Trump a slam dunk appeal.

You're too far gone to understand why people are acknowledging the obvious corruption and bias in this case, and it does matter.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
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!

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

originally posted by: EndTime

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?

Yes, Trump asked to be recused, but the judge said no.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan



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...

And the majority don’t have to take into account the views of the minority? When there is no legal obligation for a juror than to side with their own convictions.

a reply to: Lazy88

Your point? The jury is corrupt?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

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...

Then why not just have a jury of one F’n juror.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: wAnchorofCarp

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

John Edwards.

excellent point. Now, do you recall how that one turned out?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lazy88

Your point? The jury is corrupt?

How did you get that from…

And the majority don’t have to take into account the views of the minority? When there is no legal obligation for a juror than to side with their own convictions.

a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: MrGashler

I understand that Trump pretends to think that anyone who opposes him is corrupt.

This trial is so corrupt even the Kangaroos are asking people to stop using their names.

a reply to: Lazy88

How did you get that from…

From all the posters that making preemptive excuses for Trump's conviction, claiming that the jury is corrupt and will convict Trump on all counts, without discussion.

Does anyone even know what the 34 counts are?

Or are you just going off of MSM?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

😂

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

Sigh, when the judge asks "has the jury reached a verdict?" and the answer is "yes". There is no follow up question as to how they came to that verdict, they just read it, and they are done. You have twisted yourself into so many knots you can't even discuss the basics without lying.

And you're saying that if this jury convicts, it will corruptly convict Trump on all charges without any discussion? That they're likely to just click through, and unanimously and uncontestably all vote "Guilty" on all charges?

quote me. OR....STFU and apologize for being a dipsh!t.

So, you're saying that if the jury convicts, it will be on the evidence presented, not because they're corrupt?

If not, what are you saying?

a reply to: DBCowboy

From an earlier post…

originally posted by: Lazy88
a reply to: tanstaafl

Just looked it up…

Donald Trump’s 34 criminal charges: A closer look

www.newsnationnow.com...

Charge 1: Trump allegedly caused a false invoice from Michael Cohen in the Trump Organization kept records on Feb. 17, 2014, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust.

Basically milking the account and check and invoice to create the 33 other charges.


Wonder what civil codes they fall under for invoicing legal fees as legal fees with accurate amounts with no intent to embezzle nor to cheat the tax system.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...will convict Trump on all counts, without discussion.

Maybe they will discuss it. Maybe they won't.
But discussion is NOT the same thing as someone having to justify their verdict.
FOUR TIMES you falsely stated that they have to justify their verdicts.
They do not.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Or is it because the judge gave the impression that Trump must be found guilty even if one person has their personal convictions that there is still reasonable doubt which is a foundation of the US legal system.