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

a reply to: Lazy88

It’s not about “optimum”.

And yet, there is an Allen Rule.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Juries don't come in with a hive mind.

The mainstream media would be crushed to hear that.

For having total control of the federal government, media, and social media until Musk D’s are doing a real crap job.



Almost like this trial. Completely obvious BS.

I’m surprised real Democrats don’t speak up. Used to respect they had a lot of Principles and be anti-war. Winning at any cost only principle the party has left.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Lazy88

It’s not about “optimum”.

And yet, there is an Allen Rule.

A rule is a law that trumps the constitution and spirit of the law?

Allen charge
Primary tabs
Allen charges (also referred to as dynamite, nitroglycerin, shotgun, or third-degree charges) refer to jury instructions given to a hung jury urging them to agree on a verdict. Allen charges are controversial as some claim they overly pressure parts of the jury to change their opinions and cave to peer pressure, especially minority opinions. Because of this, many states do not allow Allen charges, but the Federal courts may use Allen charges. The name “Allen” charge comes from the case Allen v. United States (1896) where the Supreme Court ruled these types of jury instructions were allowed in Federal courts.

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sorry. The Allen charge is being wrongly used, and is not about the spirt of the constitution.

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

You have no clue what agreements or arguments he made with his family; you are only speculating based on your own experiences. You couldn't possibly know what goes on in the Trump family, what is acceptable and what is not.

Maybe his wife said "Sure you can run for president; but if I get asked one dam question about your past lovers by the the press we are going to have a big problem Don".

That could easly have happened and would explain why decades old laundry suddenly has new importance in the Trump family around the same time of the elections.

They are letting the jurors go at 4:30.

Looks like nothing today.

a reply to: Lazy88

Allen Rule - A proposed Act of Coercion ?


Coercion - Definition


: to compel to an act or choice


: to achieve by force or threat


: to restrain or dominate by force


I do not see Anything Constitutional about that , do You ?

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

How can anybody pay for an nda for a story when it’s already in the open?
Nothing could have been done about the access Hollywood tape being made public because it was already out. Use your head.

You’re just making things up. Stop it.

You doubt. Exactly.
DOUBT.
The prosecution couldn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
You’re obviously not being reasonable.
Let’s hope the jury will be.

originally posted by: Lazy88

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.

That wasn't what I said. The only way a juror can know what another juror thinks of the charges and the evidence is by discussing it with them. Jurors don't enter the jury with a hive mind, all in agreement with the intent to corruptly ignore evidence, as was suggested by Flyers Fan, when she said

The jury already decided he was guilty before they even started the trial.

a reply to: Lazy88

"Charge" I meant "charge", as I previously posted.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.

That's not them 'having to justify their verdict'.
I don't understand why that's so hard for you to understand.
AND you claimed that they have to'justify their verdict with each other' all the time.
You only tagged on the 'Allen rule' later.

Jurors were to be prepared to stay until 630pm.

Judge decided to send them home early.


I wonder if extra barricades will be brought in.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Jurors don't enter the jury with a hive mind, all in agreement with the intent to corruptly ignore evidence, ..

In NYC where 90% of the voters voted Biden ... you bet they all came in with bias. They may not have all agreed to it ahead of time, but they all individually had bias. And the judge is obviously biased.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Lazy88

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.

That wasn't what I said. The only way a juror can know what another juror thinks of the charges and the evidence is by discussing it with them. Jurors don't enter the jury with a hive mind, all in agreement with the intent to corruptly ignore evidence, as was suggested by Flyers Fan, when she said

The jury already decided he was guilty before they even started the trial.

Manhattan voted 87% for Biden.
Manhattan voted 83% for Bragg.

Hivemind is actually a very real possibility.
Averages out to 85% probability.
Don’t act like those folks are beyond political bias.

originally posted by: wAnchorofCarp
They are letting the jurors go at 4:30.

Looks like nothing today.

It’s a damn shame.

Living in the new world.

a reply to: FlyersFan

My point stands.

You believe that the jury is corrupt. You believe that a corrupt jury can ignore evidence.

I'm saying that jury doesn't have a hive mind, in which all 12 have an unspoken commitment to unanimously conspire to ignore evidence, without discussing it among themselves and while never talking about their viewpoints on the evidence and the charges, while they release their unanimous guilty verdict.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
all 12 have an unspoken commitment to unanimously conspire to ignore evidence,

They don't have to 'conspire' to do it. They just DO IT.
90% of NYC voted for Biden. Almost that many voted for Bragg.
There is ZERO chance that jury and the Biden donating Judge are unbiased.
ZERO.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Some interesting insides:

"In my over 30 years of legal experience, and from sitting in this courtroom during weeks of testimony, I have never seen a more well-educated, attentive and determined jury than this one. I am confident they will lead each other on a meticulous exploration of the evidence and consider carefully how to apply the law to it.

We got proof of that at 2:56 p.m. when the jury sent a four-part note to the judge requesting information about a series of communications involving former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, including his direct communications with Trump, about aspects of the alleged “catch and kill” conspiracy (to pay for and suppress negative stories about Trump) to benefit his campaign. While reading jury notes as if they were tea leaves can be treacherous, the note feels to me like an ominous sign for the former president.

As we were in court waiting for the requests in the first note to be addressed, the buzzer rang again — indicating that the jury had another request. This time it was for the judge to re-read the jury instructions to them, another indicator of the care they are taking in deliberations."

Norman Eisen

a reply to: malte86

From wikipedia:

Norman L. Eisen (born November 11, 1960)[1] is an American attorney, author, and former diplomat. He is a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, a CNN legal analyst, and the co-founder of the States United Democracy Center.[2][3] He was co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment and trial of President Donald Trump in 2020.

Great source LOL

a reply to: Sookiechacha

So. What states are more in line with the spirit of the constitution and the foundations of the US legal system. States that don’t allow the Allen Charges, or the states that do?

You’re not going to answer this, are you.