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

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
How can a jury determine that evidence is tainted, or that it has been proven to be false without acknowledging it and discussing it?

Easy.

1 - They already have their minds made up and don't care what the evidence says so they ignore it.

2 - They heard and saw the evidence during the trial and made up their minds about it while it was presented and have need or desire to hash through it all again.

a reply to: Lazy88

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

I've already discussed the Allen Rule.

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...

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
If Trump knew about the payments much later, after he became President, then how is there a recording of Trump talking to Cohen, taken from Cohen's phone, with Trump discussing payment of Karen McDougal, with the recording being made during the campaign for office and before Trump had authorized Cohen to proceed?

Is there a transcript of these recordings, or the recordings themselves, available anywhere?

Sure thing:

‘What do we got to pay?’ Inside the Trump-Cohen tape

That still doesn't prove beyond any doubt Trump intended to make illegal accounting entries to evade anything else that Cohen may have thought about stealing or extorting from Trump. 🤣🤣

It speaks to Trump's foreknowledge, and the fact that he has lied, and is still lying, about his foreknowledge. It also shows motive and intent.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha


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.

It’s supposed to be 12 individual people coming to their own conclusions.

The system is set up if one person has reasonable doubt, or will not go with a majority because they know the judge’s instructions are BS for example, to give the benefit to the defendant.

a reply to: FlyersFan

1 - They already have their minds made up and don't care what the evidence says so they ignore it.

Juries don't come in with a hive mind. The only way any juror can know what another juror thinks is by the jury discussing the charges and evidence.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You're absolutely right. Juries are made up of 12 individuals. Juries are however beholden to no one and are not required to agree on anything. There is no requirement that they agree on anything. You keep saying this and you keep being wrong.

How about this. How about you show us what law, statute, legal document, etc. states what you're saying is true?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

A juror can easily determine evidence is tainted or based on lies while hearing it during trial, not necessarily in a jury room. 😀 What a concept eh

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

1 - They already have their minds made up and don't care what the evidence says so they ignore it.

Juries don't come in with a hive mind. The only way any juror can know what another juror thinks is by the jury discussing the charges and evidence.

So you want them to be a hive mind then, and vote a certain way because of majority.

A jury isn’t supposed to be a democratic exercise. It’s about the prosecution convincing 12 individuals there is enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. Again. If one person thinks the prosecution didn’t make the case, it’s their individual duty to vote not guilty.

a reply to: Lazy88

Which is why I would be surprised if the this jury found Trump guilty. But a hung jury isn't optimum, and the Allen Rule triggers the jury into a discussion.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Juries don't come in with a hive mind. The only way any juror can know what another juror thinks is by the jury discussing the charges and evidence.

That doesn't address my post at all.
You talked about how the Jury has to discuss the evidence.
I showed two examples of when they do not.

1 - If they already have their minds made up and don't care what the evidence says so they ignore it.

2 - If they heard and saw the evidence during the trial and made up their minds about it while it was presented and have need or desire to hash through it all again.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
If Trump knew about the payments much later, after he became President, then how is there a recording of Trump talking to Cohen, taken from Cohen's phone, with Trump discussing payment of Karen McDougal, with the recording being made during the campaign for office and before Trump had authorized Cohen to proceed?

Is there a transcript of these recordings, or the recordings themselves, available anywhere?

Sure thing:

‘What do we got to pay?’ Inside the Trump-Cohen tape

That still doesn't prove beyond any doubt Trump intended to make illegal accounting entries to evade anything else that Cohen may have thought about stealing or extorting from Trump. 🤣🤣

It speaks to Trump's foreknowledge, and the fact that he has lied, and is still lying, about his foreknowledge. It also shows motive and intent.

Nope. Proves nothing 🤣🤣

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
...the Allen Rule triggers the jury into a discussion.

I don't think you understand the Allen Rule at all. You falsely tried to claim that the jury has to 'justify to each other' their verdict. They do not. Not even with the Allen Rule. They don't have to justify anything.

a reply to: Lazy88

So you want them to be a hive mind then

Oh FFS! I said the jury is NOT a hive mind, and that the only way any juror knows the viewpoint of another juror is through discussion.

It’s about the prosecution convincing 12 individuals there is enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt.

Which is why a jury is tasked with considering the evidence!

Again. If one person thinks the prosecution didn’t make the case, it’s their individual duty to vote not guilty.

Which is why I keep saying that I would be surprised if this jury convicts Trump!

I don't understand what you're arguing with me about!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lazy88

Which is why I would be surprised if the this jury found Trump guilty. But a hung jury isn't optimum, and the Allen Rule triggers the jury into a discussion.

It’s not about “optimum”.

It’s about a US legal system with a safety valve for individual rights over state / federal power where the prosecution has to convince 12 individuals there is enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt. If one juror thinks reasonable doubt exists, it’s their duty to vote not guilty. It’s not a majority rule exercise. It’s about 12 individuals voting their convictions. Not going with the herd.

originally posted by: Vermilion

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: JadedGhost
If Trump knew about the payments much later, after he became President, then how is there a recording of Trump talking to Cohen, taken from Cohen's phone, with Trump discussing payment of Karen McDougal, with the recording being made during the campaign for office and before Trump had authorized Cohen to proceed?

Is there a transcript of these recordings, or the recordings themselves, available anywhere?

Sure thing:

‘What do we got to pay?’ Inside the Trump-Cohen tape

“Such a secret payment could be regarded as an illegal campaign expenditure if the money is clearly meant to influence the outcome of the upcoming presidential election. But it would be a harder case to make if the payment was seen as merely designed to protect Trump, who is married, from embarrassment in his personal or private life.”

There it is right there.
They haven’t, and can’t, prove it was for the campaign and not to protect his private life.
A considerable amount of Reasonable Doubt.
Hopefully they’ll be some honest jurors in the bunch.

But he knew of the situations (there are multiple sexual misconduct accusations and crude remarks from years before he was a candidate), since the early 2000's, and he did nothing until they came up again during his candidacy in 2016.

It seems he has said and done things that are hurtful to his family, and particularly to his wife, all the time. They are on public record.

On that basis, I doubt that his primary motivation was to protect his family.

a reply to: CarlLaFong
PM4U

This is quite relevant to this ongoing, around the clock conversation…..
I urge you all to watch it.


x.com...

a reply to: FlyersFan

The jury must consider the charges, the evidence and try to reach a verdict. This is what they are charged with.

If they cannot reach a verdict, the judge can invoke the Allen Rule to encourage the jury to go back in and try again, to try harder to understand each other's viewpoints.

By the time the jury informs the judge they have reached a verdict, they understand each other's viewpoints and justifications, because they have discussed the charges and the evidence with each other.

I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I said the jury is NOT a hive mind,

If you want the jury to reach a verdict as a majority, instead of 12 individuals working through their own convictions and voting independently, then you want a hive mind.