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

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: FlyersFan

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

As I understand the timeline, Braggs team was assembled and the charges were laid and then two of Braggs team resigned. So Bragg was looking for replacements and then hired Colangelo, who had left the DOJ eight months earlier.

No proof was ever presented that Trump even took tax deductions from all this. 🤣🤣

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Juries can ignore evidence that's tainted and not proven true. 😃 Right?

a reply to: chr0naut

While Bragg hiring the DoJ lackey is true, you'll need to revisit the accuracy of your timeline.

The two left because Bragg didn't yet have enough to bring to trial. IMO, he still doesn't.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And you are wrong about literally all of that.

Juries can absolutely ignore evidence. They do not have to discuss or justify their reasoning. They can absolutely agree with the prosecution and the judge and deliver a guilty verdict regardless of any evidence or lack thereof.

Juries are groups of 12 people. They aren't synchronized. They don't act in tandem to each other. They are 12 individuals with their own viewpoints. The judge gives orders for a reason, you know. While, sometimes everyone can easily agree, that is not the norm. Juries are tasked with considering the charges and the evidence and trying to agree on the verdict.

By the time the jury issues a verdict, it has collectively justified it within its own group of 12.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
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?

Wasn't Cohen convicted of roughly the same thing, and now Trump is being prosecuted for his part in it?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Juries can ignore evidence that's tainted and not proven true. 😃 Right?

They would have to consider the evidence first, to determine it's tainted, right?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: FlyersFan

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

As I understand the timeline, Braggs team was assembled and the charges were laid and then two of Braggs team resigned. So Bragg was looking for replacements and then hired Colangelo, who had left the DOJ eight months earlier.

Oh So Perfectly convenient wasn't it. 🤡

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
By the time the jury issues a verdict, it has collectively justified it within its own group of 12.

Incorrect.
They do not give one agreed upon verdict.
They give 12 individual verdicts and those together equate to the final verdict.
They do not 'collectively justify it within the group'.
Some may say guilty and some may say innnocent.
They do not 'collectively justify' with each other their individual verdicts.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What happens if a juror ignores jury instructions? 😀

a reply to: chr0naut

Not really.

Is that your understanding?

a reply to: chr0naut

Not really.

Is that your understanding?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
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?

Wasn't Cohen convicted of roughly the same thing, and now Trump is being prosecuted for his part in it?

Cohen was convicted of completely different things. Actual crimes, unlike Trump's non-crimes. 🤣🤣

a reply to: chr0naut

Trump is being charged that his organization listed legal fees as legal fees for a lawyer who obtained a NDA.

Now. What law was broken.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Juries can ignore evidence that's tainted and not proven true. 😃 Right?

They would have to consider the evidence first, to determine it's tainted, right?

Still evading questions I see. And no, they wouldn't have to consider the evidence first. 😊 Why would they have to?

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
a reply to: chr0naut

While Bragg hiring the DoJ lackey is true, you'll need to revisit the accuracy of your timeline.

The two left because Bragg didn't yet have enough to bring to trial. IMO, he still doesn't.

As I understand it, at the time, Bragg did not believe that the case was strong enough to proceed and the two prosecutors resigned because they believed the case was strong enough and they didn't want to hang around doing nothing if Bragg would not proceed.

Since then, additional evidence and witnesses have come to light, and Bragg now believes there is a sufficiently strong case.

Anyway, we will probably know the outcome today.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
[
By the time the jury issues a verdict, it has collectively justified it within its own group of 12.

Where is that required.

If one juror thinks there is reasonable doubt it’s their duty to vote not guilty.

Why there is a jury of 12 separate individuals. Not a jury of one. It’s about 12 separate votes, not majority rules. The US legal system is based on convincing 12 individuals there is evidence behind reasonable doubt. There is supposed to be no convincing based on a majority.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Juries can ignore evidence that's tainted and not proven true. 😃 Right?

They would have to consider the evidence first, to determine it's tainted, right?

Still evading questions I see. And no, they wouldn't have to consider the evidence first. 😊 Why would they have to?

You asked:

Juries can ignore evidence that's tainted and not proven true. 😃 Right?

How can a jury determine that evidence is tainted, or that it has been proven to be false without acknowledging it and discussing it? It seems you're the evasive one.

originally posted by: chr0naut
[
Since then, additional evidence and witnesses have come to light, and Bragg now believes there is a sufficiently strong case.

Anyway, we will probably know the outcome today.

Sigh..

Trump is being charged that his organization listed legal fees as legal fees for a lawyer who obtained a NDA.

Now. What law was broken.

a reply to: chr0naut

Since then, additional evidence and witnesses have come to light

You really have to source your ridiculous claims.
You know better.