pull down to refresh
64 sats \ 5 replies \ @Undisciplined 31 May \ parent \ on: "I Just Donated $300k To Trump" news
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.
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