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

originally posted by: budzprime69
a reply to: RazorV66

Nah I think even less people support him now. His actions at the LNC proved without a doubt to independents the kind of person he is.
Also he hired Cohen so Cohen lying really shows the caliber of people Trump hires. Not a good look for gus defense.

As an independent I would say it has only reinforced my belief the Democrats do not give a damn about the rule of law.

Power by any means is their goal.

You are utterly destroying our society, which also seems to be your goal.

a reply to: TzarChasm

It was never avout justice for Stormy but finding any half assed excuse to upgrade the initial crime from petty fraud to felony fraud.

Stormy is just one of the party's in the case , why she is relevant is because if Trump paid hush money to protect his Presidential campaign and maintain the image of a happily married man that shows dishonesty which ties in with the other part of the trail , if he was just Donald Trump property developer it probably wouldn't really matter but as a Presidential hopeful it kinda really does.

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.

According to the Judge's instructions...they can find Trump guilty of mean tweets.

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

It comes down to who the jury believes based on the evidence presented, does it not?


The jury seated for the trial, regardless of their perceived "leanings", is the product of both the prosecution and the defense, neither should be claiming bias, since both determined the make up of the jury.

That is the system.


So it comes down to whether or not the prosecution has proved their case to the satisfaction of the jury.


Or, from a different perspective, whether the defense has been successful in refuting a significant enough amount of the prosecution's evidence to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.


That, also, is the system.



The thing is, as I have listened to the reports coming out of the trial these past weeks, it seems Trump's defense team has spent most (if not all) of its time refuting the character, and/or motives, of the prosecution's witnesses; not the prosecution's evidence. The phone transcripts, the bank records, the details of the tryst which Trump claims never happened, etc..


If I were a jury member, those are the things that I would find most persuasive, and potentially damning. I'd be looking, always, first, for the "smoking gun", so to speak. Whether a witness is "of good character" or not matters little if the evidence they provide cannot (or is not) assailable.


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.

Under our legal system, the prosecution has the burden of proving their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense, in theory, only has to raise reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.

The strongest way for the prosecution to make their case is to present a coherent story to the jury that has a beginning, a middle, and an end and can be supported by documentary evidence and testimony every step of the way. (That's called the Theory of the Case.) In this case, the prosecution can document the story from the time Trump met Stormy in 2006 at a golf tournament at Lake Tahoe in 2006 and all the steps up until the time he repaid Cohen in 2017.

The defense has been trying to cast doubt on the prosecution's argument one piece at a time. Maybe Trump never met Stormy? (He says so informally, but there is no question that they were both there in Tahoe at the same time.) Maybe he was just following advice from his lawyers? (He has suggested that informally, but his lawyers would not let him use that argument in court because it would open him up to cross examination.) Maybe he didn't really know what the checks he wrote to Cohen were for? Maybe the crime he is charged with isn't really a crime? Maybe, Maybe, Maybe.

This defense is basically saying there are many possible alternative stories than the one the prosecution is pushing, so therefore there should be reasonable doubt, right? The problem is that the defense is not settling on any one particular story about what actually DID happen. If Trump is actually innocent, it should be possible to describe and document in very simple terms what actually DID happen from 2006 until 2017 and why that refutes the prosecution's story.

The defense wasn't required by law to present a Theory of the Case, but their case would have been a lot stronger if they had.

originally posted by: DAVID64
It's New York and a biased jury, so I'm going with guilty, but he wins on appeal.

Remember, this is not about sending Trump to jail, it's all for the optics and keeping him off the campaign trail.

This has backfired on them so badly, they have no choice but to see it through without revealing the real reason behind it.

If Trump wins he gets a boost in support.

If Trump looses he gets a massive boost in support.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TzarChasm

It was never avout justice for Stormy but finding any half assed excuse to upgrade the initial crime from petty fraud to felony fraud.

Stormy is just one of the party's in the case , why she is relevant is because if Trump paid hush money to protect his Presidential campaign and maintain the image of a happily married man that shows dishonesty which ties in with the other part of the trail , if he was just Donald Trump property developer it probably wouldn't really matter but as a Presidential hopeful it kinda really does.

Why didn’t the Federal Election Commission, who is the enforcement arm for campaign finance laws, pursue anything against Trump?

a reply to: pianopraze

You may be independent but are far from libertarian. And for Trump to use his SS detail to remove things that upsets him like a snowflake it really shows the authoritarian side of him. And you tell me I am destroying society. Sorry bud I don't trample on others freedom.

a reply to: gortex

Is that one of the charges? No. Nowhere to be seen or read. There is no conspiracy charge. There is no election contribution charges. No one was defrauded.

If Merchan gives Trump home confinement...Biden gets to go to the debates and say Trump didn't show : )

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: Mantiss2021
a reply to: CarlLaFong

It comes down to who the jury believes based on the evidence presented, does it not?


The jury seated for the trial, regardless of their perceived "leanings", is the product of both the prosecution and the defense, neither should be claiming bias, since both determined the make up of the jury.

That is the system.


So it comes down to whether or not the prosecution has proved their case to the satisfaction of the jury.


Or, from a different perspective, whether the defense has been successful in refuting a significant enough amount of the prosecution's evidence to convince the jury of reasonable doubt.


That, also, is the system.



The thing is, as I have listened to the reports coming out of the trial these past weeks, it seems Trump's defense team has spent most (if not all) of its time refuting the character, and/or motives, of the prosecution's witnesses; not the prosecution's evidence. The phone transcripts, the bank records, the details of the tryst which Trump claims never happened, etc..


If I were a jury member, those are the things that I would find most persuasive, and potentially damning. I'd be looking, always, first, for the "smoking gun", so to speak. Whether a witness is "of good character" or not matters little if the evidence they provide cannot (or is not) assailable.


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.

Under our legal system, the prosecution has the burden of proving their claims beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense, in theory, only has to raise reasonable doubts in the minds of the jurors.

The strongest way for the prosecution to make their case is to present a coherent story to the jury that has a beginning, a middle, and an end and can be supported by documentary evidence and testimony every step of the way. (That's called the Theory of the Case.) In this case, the prosecution can document the story from the time Trump met Stormy in 2006 at a golf tournament at Lake Tahoe in 2006 and all the steps up until the time he repaid Cohen in 2017.

The defense has been trying to cast doubt on the prosecution's argument one piece at a time. Maybe Trump never met Stormy? (He says so informally, but there is no question that they were both there in Tahoe at the same time.) Maybe he was just following advice from his lawyers? (He has suggested that informally, but his lawyers would not let him use that argument in court because it would open him up to cross examination.) Maybe he didn't really know what the checks he wrote to Cohen were for? Maybe the crime he is charged with isn't really a crime? Maybe, Maybe, Maybe.

This defense is basically saying there are many possible alternative stories than the one the prosecution is pushing, so therefore there should be reasonable doubt, right? The problem is that the defense is not settling on any one particular story about what actually DID happen. If Trump is actually innocent, it should be possible to describe and document in very simple terms what actually DID happen from 2006 until 2017 and why that refutes the prosecution's story.

The defense wasn't required by law to present a Theory of the Case, but their case would have been a lot stronger if they had.

Why didn’t the Federal Election Commission, who is the enforcement arm for campaign finance laws, pursue anything against Trump?

originally posted by: Threadbarer
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.

They never showed where Trump made the journal entries?? Or even proved Trump "ordered" where the entries should go??? 😀

originally posted by: Annee

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.

Why didn’t the Federal Election Commission, who is the enforcement arm for campaign finance laws, pursue anything against Trump?

a reply to: CarlLaFong

How so? Both major candidates are still eligible to run regardless of the outcome of this trial.

There is no way Trump will get a fair trial - Even the Jury is in a position to be famous the 1st jury to convict a President think of the book deals and interviews afterward . They have a chance to make a lot of money .

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: xuenchen

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

Well that's enough for plenty of "reasonable confusion". 😬

originally posted by: budzprime69
a reply to: pianopraze

You may be independent but are far from libertarian. And for Trump to use his SS detail to remove things that upsets him like a snowflake it really shows the authoritarian side of him. And you tell me I am destroying society. Sorry bud I don't trample on others freedom.

If what was elected represents Libertarian then you are absolutely correct.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: TzarChasm

It was never avout justice for Stormy but finding any half assed excuse to upgrade the initial crime from petty fraud to felony fraud.

Stormy is just one of the party's in the case , why she is relevant is because if Trump paid hush money to protect his Presidential campaign and maintain the image of a happily married man that shows dishonesty which ties in with the other part of the trail , if he was just Donald Trump property developer it probably wouldn't really matter but as a Presidential hopeful it kinda really does.

It only matters if you're losing badly in the polls and need to lawfully sabotage your political rival to have any hope of being re elected.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

I thought all the "charges" were false business entries????????????????? 😀

originally posted by: Ravenwatcher
There is no way Trump will get a fair trial - Even the Jury is in a position to be famous the 1st jury to convict a President think of the book deals and interviews afterward . They have a chance to make a lot of money .

I agree.

The only question in my mind is how far gone is the average NY Democrat.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
If Merchan gives Trump home confinement...Biden gets to go to the debates and say Trump didn't show : )

Unless they make a TV set at Mar-a-Lago 😊

Then Biden won't show.