pull down to refresh
1139 sats \ 15 replies \ @siggy47 OP 31 May \ parent \ on: "I Just Donated $300k To Trump" news
I haven't dug too deeply into this trial so what I'm saying is superficial. I spent most of my career trying criminal cases in NY. The jury instructions are never given to the jury. It's ridiculous. Then the jury understandably asks for readbacks, which can waste hours of court time. You can't put that on the judge.
Regarding the prosecution overall, the case shouldn't have been brought, since it's my understanding that the NY election interference charges were predicated on federal crimes, which should not have been prosecuted in a state court. Once being presented with the indictment, the judge should have dismissed it pre trial. The rest was a dog and pony show. The conviction will be overturned in appeal.
What about the jury instruction that the jurors did not have to agree on what the underlying crime was?
Honestly, I can see the logic of that instruction, but a lot of people are reacting strongly against it.
reply
Since it serves as the underlying charge for another crime, they only need to agree a crime took place, not specific versions of the event. So, the instruction wasn't wrong ON THAT LEVEL. But, the underlying crimes were federal, not state, so a state jury should not have been deciding them in the first place.
reply
Why doesn't there have to be a conviction for the underlying crimes, though?
This seems like a glaring violation of due process.
reply
Generally speaking, there has to be a unanimous verdict finding guilt of a particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt. All the jurors don't have to agree on what the underlying facts are that constituted that crime. I haven't paid attention to this case. How did the instructions differ from this general principle?
reply
I haven't followed it all that closely either, but the escalation to a felony charge is predicated on there being an underlying crime and Trump has never been convicted of any of the potential underlying crimes.
It just seems to me like you would have to be convicted of a particular crime in order for it to serve as a predicate for that escalation.
reply
I'll have to research that. NY enhancement statutes have some weird, constitutionally dubious provisions, if I recall. Hate crime laws were particularly bad.
reply
reply
Yep. It seems accurate
reply
Elie Honig works for CNN as a legal analyst
The article is paywall by New York magazine which is one reason I used perplexity AI
reply
Why is it illegal to classify payments to lawyers as legal expenses?
Was Trump or his book keeper supposed to write “hush money to porn actress” in his ledger?
reply
That's not illegal. It's really not worth trying to analyze the case point by point. It was complete bullshit. If it's not overturned on appeal this country is in trouble. I'm sure this will spawn equally flimsy cases against Dems in red jurisdictions. Tit for tat.
reply
I'm sure this will spawn equally flimsy cases against Dems in red jurisdictions.
Honestly, I hope it does, but I'm very skeptical that it will. It's not really two parties. It's the rulers and the ruled.
reply
You might be right. I already heard people urging Arkansas to charge Hillary and for a willing state to indict Jim Biden. It will be telling to see if you're right.
reply
Nobody's going to touch the Clintons in Arkansas. "Arkancide" isn't a term by accident.
reply
Jury instructions are available to the public but not to the jury in New York.
What is the rationale behind this?
reply