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

originally posted by: matafuchs
Why does the jury not get a copy of their instructions?

Hung 50%
Guilty 40%
Not Guilty 10%

The Instructions were verbal only?????????

originally posted by: JadedGhost
a reply to: CarlLaFong

There’s almost no way it’s going to be not guilty, the defense haven’t even seriously argued for a not guilty verdict, since they really don’t have anything to work with.

Way to much evidence against Trump to indicate he knew and helped plan the payments as ‘legal fees’. But there’s a good chance there will be a rogue jury or two who’ll say it wasn’t proven beyond reasonable doubt… so either guilty or hung jury.

Trump didn't pay Stormy or Karen. Cohen did from his own account(s). The Prosecutors didn't prove Trump did anything illegal according to the "charges". 🤣🤣🤣

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: RickyD

So far as I've heard, the jury instructions basically say that the jurors don't have to agree on what crime Trump committed in order to find him guilty. I haven't seen that actually confirmed per se, but that's what I'm hearing.

If found "Guilty", I wonder how they will read it out loud???? 🤣🤣🤣🤣

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Judge: Jurors don't have to agree on what the actual crime is.

To find Trump guilty of felony-level falsification of business documents, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was, Justice Juan Merchan ruled.

But they do have to "unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents" , what the documents were is secondary the case is about the falsifacation.

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.
www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.


In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

I agree.

The witnesses lied is not much of a defense.

Is that like proving beyond a reasonable doubt?? 🤣

Proof
Proving
Proved

I'm thinking hung jury.

It seems clear to me that democrats are more interested in smearing Trump and costing him money than anything else. A hung jury gives them a chance to do it all again before the election. Costing Trump more in legal fees, giving left wing pundits more airtime on CNN and MSNBC, and distracting from the abysmal Biden regime.

All at taxpayer expense.

Without Trump bashing, the media might have to report on things like ATF hit squads busting into people's homes and assassinating them over arbitrary rules made up by Biden's ATF.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: SomeStupidName

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SomeStupidName

It won't be a law.

It'll be an Executive Order signed by Biden.

Written in hooker pee?

Signed BY a hooker IN Biden's pee.

Judge: Jurors don't have to agree on what the actual crime is.

So if the jurors think he's guilty of SOMETHING, then they can convict.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: CarlLaFong

originally posted by: SomeStupidName

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SomeStupidName

It won't be a law.

It'll be an Executive Order signed by Biden.

Written in hooker pee?

Signed BY a hooker IN Biden's pee.

Judge: Jurors don't have to agree on what the actual crime is.

So if the jurors think he's guilty of SOMETHING, then they can convict.

Basically, yes.
They have been given a 'Guilt Buffet' by the Judge.

originally posted by: MrGashler
a reply to: Annee

I am stating a fact.

In my era fathers and daughters taking showers together was not unusual.

Times change.

I do not talk about Biden on ATS.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Let's all speculate now what -- "at a YOUNG AGE" means.

Isn't it interesting -- that part seems to be left out of previous conversations.

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

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes. They had to take notes. He discussed them for an hour.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Basically, yes. I have never heard of anything like this.

a reply to: DBCowboy

No. Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records. For him to be found guilty, the jury must believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did falsify the business records he's charged with falsifying.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I have heard very little to nothing from the defense table that directly refutes almost anything the prosecution has placed into evidence.


In my opinion, that does not bode well for the defense.

I agree.

The witnesses lied is not much of a defense.

Of course you would believe convicted, pathological liars with delusions of grandeur.

I’m not on the jury.

Imagine if (when?) the jury votes Trump "GUILTY".
Merchan can and likely will, sentence him to prison or home confinement.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

That is generally what happens when one is convicted of felonies.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Judge: Jurors don't have to agree on what the actual crime is.

To find Trump guilty of felony-level falsification of business documents, the jury must unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents in order to commit or conceal a separate crime. But the jurors do not all have to agree on what that separate crime was, Justice Juan Merchan ruled.

But they do have to "unanimously find that Trump falsified the documents" , what the documents were is secondary the case is about the falsifacation.

In other words: If some jurors believe that Trump falsified business documents solely to cover up a tax crime, while others believe that he falsified business documents solely to cover up an election crime, the jury can still convict Trump on the felony-level falsifying-documents charges, despite disagreeing on the predicate crimes.
www.politico.com...

That's the first charge, the second charge is paying hush money. That's how you escalate the previous misdemeanor to a felony (that's how the law is worded) which is what they want to do, get him on a technicality. It was never about justice for Stormy but finding any half assed excuse to upgrade the initial crime from petty fraud to felony fraud. But at this point the jury is so inundated with incogent noise that doesn't point conclusively to any actual crime besides Trump being promiscuous, that's all they can possibly agree on.

a reply to: TzarChasm

He is only charged with falsifying business records. That charge becomes a felony when the falsifying of business records is done to commit or cover up another crime.

That crime is referred to as a predicate crime, but it does not need to be charged on order for falsifying business records ruli be upgraded from second degree to first degree.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: CarlLaFong

That is generally what happens when one is convicted of felonies.

We're witnessing history today.
12 New Yorkers will now get to choose the next US president.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: CarlLaFong

That is generally what happens when one is convicted of felonies.

A former POTUS?

Watch what happens if that happens.

BTW, we’ve missed your Cracker Jack analysis.

originally posted by: Threadbarer
a reply to: TzarChasm

He is only charged with falsifying business records. That charge becomes a felony when the falsifying of business records is done to commit or cover up another crime.

That crime is referred to as a predicate crime, but it does not need to be charged on order for falsifying business records ruli be upgraded from second degree to first degree.

Thank you for clarifying my remarks.