Will he be found guilty? Will he be Acquitted (not guilty)? Will there be a hung jury?

[Paul158]

Who knows. One thing we know for sure is the media will be talking about it 24/7 for months. They might even melt down the airways if he is acquitted. Have a great day everyone. This has been quite an education for the American public.

[Lipdrag]

Those writing parodies cannot even get close to exceeding the absurdity of this "judge".  

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/judge-instructs-jurors-they-need-not-believe-trump-is-guilty-to-convict-him

[mspart]

From Jonathan Turley:   https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/

Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.

Since when is this a thing?   What a crock this whole trial has been.   There is no clear cut allegation, no clear cut wrong doing, but as long as jurors think he did different things, there is still a unanimous verdict?   This is pure blasphemy in a justice proceeding seeking the truth.   Will any appellate court uphold this kind of shenanigan?   It is the only way Merchan and Bragg can hope to ensure a conviction because there was no evidence presented to convict Trump on the vacuous charges brought against him.  

mspart

 

[Lipdrag]

12 minutes ago, mspart said:

Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.

The crime is being guilty of being Donald Trump.  If 12 jurors can be convinced of that Merchan will call it a conviction.

 

The forebear of Merchan's court:

 

Edited May 29 by Lipdrag

[mspart]

That's a good one.   Monty Python is good social satire comedy. 

mspart

[Paul158]

4 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

Those writing parodies cannot even get close to exceeding the absurdity of this "judge".  

 

https://babylonbee.com/news/judge-instructs-jurors-they-need-not-believe-trump-is-guilty-to-convict-him

This is insanity. This is 3rd world country level of judicial malfeasance.

Edited May 29 by Paul158
missed a word.

[Paul158]

4 hours ago, mspart said:

From Jonathan Turley:   https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/

Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.

Since when is this a thing?   What a crock this whole trial has been.   There is no clear cut allegation, no clear cut wrong doing, but as long as jurors think he did different things, there is still a unanimous verdict?   This is pure blasphemy in a justice proceeding seeking the truth.   Will any appellate court uphold this kind of shenanigan?   It is the only way Merchan and Bragg can hope to ensure a conviction because there was no evidence presented to convict Trump on the vacuous charges brought against him.  

mspart

 

Might be a good time for vigilante justice. We must save our Republic.

[WrestlingRasta]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Might be a good time for vigilante justice. We must save our Republic.

So you’re literally putting a call for political violence on social media?  
 

Wow, you’re really putting your balls out there, over some ‘media’ headlines. There’s a few people you could ask how that works out in this country…may have to get on a Thursday waiting list though.  

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

Might be a good time for vigilante justice. We must save our Republic.

I'd be more inclined to simply let the eastern 3rd of NY and the western half of CA quickly and quietly depart from the Union.  

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, Paul158 said:

This is insanity. This is 3rd world country level of judicial malfeasance.

Lighten up, Francis. The Babylon Bee is satire.

[Paul158]

53 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

So you’re literally putting a call for political violence on social media?  
 

Wow, you’re really putting your balls out there, over some ‘media’ headlines. There’s a few people you could ask how that works out in this country…may have to get on a Thursday waiting list though.  

I got a memo that you were available if needed. Are you saying that wasn't you. 

[Paul158]

Just now, Wrestleknownothing said:

Lighten up, Francis. The Babylon Bee is satire.

So, if I'm Francis you must be Josephine.

[ionel]

19 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

Lighten up, Francis. The Babylon Bee is satire.

[WrestlingRasta]

24 minutes ago, Paul158 said:

I got a memo that you were available if needed. Are you saying that wasn't you. 

Careful. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, Paul158 said:

So, if I'm Francis you must be Josephine.

No, it makes me Sgt. Hulka, the big toe of the army.

[JimmyBT]

More like Camel Toe 

[JimmyBT]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/is-trump-guilty-or-not-acquitted-or-convicted-he-wins-no-matter-what/ar-BB1ngSJn?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=15a7a7f1b84c4a1c8c2e830ce0bf0a05&ei=10
 

[VakAttack]

11 hours ago, mspart said:

From Jonathan Turley:   https://jonathanturley.org/2024/05/28/the-closing-trumps-final-argument-must-be-clarity-to-chaos-in-merchans-courtroom/

Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict.

Since when is this a thing?   What a crock this whole trial has been.   There is no clear cut allegation, no clear cut wrong doing, but as long as jurors think he did different things, there is still a unanimous verdict?   This is pure blasphemy in a justice proceeding seeking the truth.   Will any appellate court uphold this kind of shenanigan?   It is the only way Merchan and Bragg can hope to ensure a conviction because there was no evidence presented to convict Trump on the vacuous charges brought against him.  

mspart

 

Since forever.  All the conservative lawyers (looking at you Marco Rubio) who are mischaracterizing this should face sanctions.

One of the elements that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that he falsified the records to either conceal or commit another crime.  The jury has to be unanimous that he falsified the records to commit or conceal another crime, they don't have to be unanimous as to what particular crime it was.  It's called charging in the alternative, and defense lawyers often employ a similar strategy when arguing for reasonable doubt.  Example: "ladies and gentleman, you don't all have to have the same reasonable doubt.  Juror number 1 can have a reasonable doubt as to element 1, juror number 4 can have a reasonable doubt as to element 4" etc, etc.

 

Suffice to say, this is completely normal criminal law practice and jury instructions.

Edited May 30 by VakAttack

[Offthemat]

10 hours ago, VakAttack said:

Since forever.  All the conservative lawyers (looking at you Marco Rubio) who are mischaracterizing this should face sanctions.

One of the elements that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that he falsified the records to either conceal or commit another crime.  The jury has to be unanimous that he falsified the records to commit or conceal another crime, they don't have to be unanimous as to what particular crime it was.  It's called charging in the alternative, and defense lawyers often employ a similar strategy when arguing for reasonable doubt.  Example: "ladies and gentleman, you don't all have to have the same reasonable doubt.  Juror number 1 can have a reasonable doubt as to element 1, juror number 4 can have a reasonable doubt as to element 4" etc, etc.

 

Suffice to say, this is completely normal criminal law practice and jury instructions.

Are you sure about this?  Cause you’re talking about elements, as in different elements of the same crime, when in Trump’s case it’s three different crimes with elements all their own.  

[NM1965]

If I was one of the jurors it would be a well hung jury. 

[NM1965]

21 hours ago, mspart said:

That's a good one.   Monty Python is good social satire comedy. 

mspart

Comedy? I thought that was a documentary filmed in real time. 

[NM1965]

22 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

The crime is being guilty of being Donald Trump.  If 12 jurors can be convinced of that Merchan will call it a conviction.

 

The forebear of Merchan's court:

 

"For the crime of being Donald Trump". 

 

[PortaJohn]

My bet would be on a hung jury.  @VakAttack you thinking the same?  Most plausible?

[VakAttack]

51 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Are you sure about this?  Cause you’re talking about elements, as in different elements of the same crime, when in Trump’s case it’s three different crimes with elements all their own.  

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I'll try to answer.

The jury has to decide that each element of each count of each crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to find him guilty.  Obviously there are multiple counts he's facing, some of them for the same charge but for different actions (like one check from April whatever and one check from May whatever; the crime could be under the same statute, but it's its own separate crime because it's a separate action).  One of the elements of several of the charges is that he was taking the action to commit or conceal a separate crime.  So as to each count of the indictment where that is an element, the jury has to believe that that element (as well as all the other elements of the crime) have been proven for that individual action.

 

Let me try to give an example:

Check 1, signed by Donald Trump.

Check 2, signed by Eric Trump, but the prosecution is claiming Donald Trump knew what was going on.

The jury would look at count 1 and decide whether all the elements of check 1 were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including whether Trump was doing it to commit or  conceal a crime (and they're apparently alleging it could be any of three separate crimes).  If they feel all were proven beyond a reasonable doubt (but using he judge's instructions, some felt Trump was trying to commit or conceal crime A, but others felt he was trying to commit or conceal crime B), they should find him guilty of that count.  For argument's sake, lets say they found him guilty as to check 1.

Then they would go and look at check 2.  So lets say they're not fully convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew what was happening with this check.  Maybe they think he knew the check was being filled out, but didn't know where it was going to.  Or maybe one juror thinks that, but the other juror thinks he knew where it was going, but didn't know it was for hiding a separate crime.  They would find him not guilty as to that count.

 

I hope I was clear here.

[VakAttack]

7 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

My bet would be on a hung jury.  @VakAttack you thinking the same?  Most plausible?

I would guess we'll get multiple verdicts.  Guilty to some counts, not guilty to others, and maybe a hung jury on a couple of them.  Having only limited access to the actual facts being presented, my guess is they find him guilty on the checks he actually signed, but not on the ones he didn't sign personally.