Verdict Wednesday!

[Anonymous]

Predict hung jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Predict hung jury.

my sister predicting that too. I predict not guilty.

[Anonymous]

What's worse - using the term 'Convicted Felon' or 'Convicted Criminal'?

[Anonymous]

Guilty, Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guilty, Friday.

Hope so.

[Anonymous]

LAW FARE: Acting Justice Merchan is requiring Trump to remain in the courthouse while the jury deliberates. There is no reason he couldn’t wait at his home - no reason other than to punish him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LAW FARE: Acting Justice Merchan is requiring Trump to remain in the courthouse while the jury deliberates. There is no reason he couldn’t wait at his home - no reason other than to punish him.

So you are saying Trump should be treated differently than other defendants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LAW FARE: Acting Justice Merchan is requiring Trump to remain in the courthouse while the jury deliberates. There is no reason he couldn’t wait at his home - no reason other than to punish him.

This is standard NY state practice, your know, states rights and all. He’s currently sitting in the courtroom nodding off and farting. I’m sure everyone would like for him to go home but this is the law, at least in NY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the judge gave the jury the ability to select from any of three underlying "crimes" that have just been articulated at the conclusion of the trial and not unanimously agree on one - ridiculous.

Issues with this:
- The defense went to trial without knowing the underlying crime the prosecution was charging - very unconstitutional.
- The instruction that the jury does not have to agree on what happened and can choose from a menu of options - ridiculous.
- The fact that one of the crimes is a federal election crime is egregious. Bragg has no authority here. If it were a Democrat being prosecuted, you know damn well that Garland would jump on this and prevent them from prosecuting a federal law. Just look at how they have treated Texas and OK when it comes to immigration law.

This has been a sham case with an apparently corrupt judge and a corrupt DA.
Hopefully the jury will see this trial for what it is.... an attempt to eliminate a presidential nominee from election.

All of this.

The idea that the jury doesn’t have to agree on the underlying “crime” is absolutely preposterous. The idea that one of the them is a federal crime for which he was never charged is also outrageous. The idea that no co conspirator is named - the idiocy here goes on and on. And you don’t have to be a Trump voter to acknowledge it.

I love seeing this string of posts that try to inflame and confuse.

This is not hard.

These are not obscure or archane laws.

And there has to be unanimity around the conspiracy, but not the individual elements of the applicable laws.

That is standard in NY law.

Or are you saying that the law should be applied to Trump differently?

+1

[Anonymous]

I actually hope he gets nailed only for the business document and tax law violations, which are state-only issues.

If they also find him guilty of the election interference it will give the federal courts the opportunity to weigh in.

[Anonymous]

NY State will be nailed to the cross when he gets in office!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I actually hope he gets nailed only for the business document and tax law violations, which are state-only issues.

If they also find him guilty of the election interference it will give the federal courts the opportunity to weigh in.

Nope.

This is a state prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banana Republic....

This is how NY law works. Is Turley suggesting that Donald Trump should not have what every other has?

Well Turley completely misstates what the actual instructions were, of course. The instructions say that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous on the means by which Trump violated NY law. This is NY law. And the fact that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous on the means of the crime was blessed by the conservative SCOTUS majority in Schad v. Arizona. 3 squishy "soft on crime" liberals on the court dissented. Sucks when your own "tough on crime" rhetoric comes back to bite you in the ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NY State will be nailed to the cross when he gets in office!

Sure it will. The city alone has more people than like 40 other entire states. It survived 9 11. Trump is a flea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bigger issue is the judge is not letting the jury rehear evidence saying it is not relevant?

When did this happen?

As of yesterday, the judge said that they would locate the requested testimony, and provide it to the jury. Did that not happen yesterday? It was at the end of the day, so it could be this morning.

If someone has a better reference for this claim, I’d be happy to hear it.

At lunch, Judge Merchan said that the jury would be dismissed at 4:30 PM. The jury request came in after 3:45 and was just before 4:00 when all of the appropriate people were reconvened in the court room. The judge knew that it could take hours for the court staff to scour the transcripts to find all of the references that the jury asked for. And after the court staff reviewed and submitted, then both sets of lawyers would have the chance to sign off on what was reread for the jury. Both sides had to agree, in case they felt there was additional testimony that was relevant that needed to be included. So, the judge dismissed the jury around 4:00. Then the court staff and the lawyers stayed until after 5:00 PM when the court staff reviewed the list. The prosecution tried to add an extra page of segments to include. The defense objected to the inclusion of the extra segments to be reread and said that they should only reread the parts that the jury explicitly asked for. The judge said he understood why the defense requested that. The CNN live page did not update after 5:30 and does not include what the judge decided to include in the read-back.

The court was back in session today just before 9:40. Judge Merchan reread the jury instructions from pages 6-35 (out of 55) starting around 9:50. The court started the reread of jury-requested testimony just after 10:30. And the judge did announce when court was in session that they would include the extra testimony that the prosecution requested be read.

So, the original PP above is mistaken. The testimony reread was not denied, it was delayed so that they could identify all the segments that needed to be reread. And they did this after dismissing the jury so that they were not just sitting around waiting. The court, court staff and lawyers stayed late to provide the requested testimony. And they were read when court resumed today.