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

[Offthemat]

18 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

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.

No.  The situation involving your ‘charging in the alternative’ as you stated it, applies to different elements of one law.  Whereas, in this trial, the judge is saying the jurors can find that he is guilty if he intended to commit any of three separate crimes.  One of campaign finance; one of tax; and one of falsifying bank records.  Three separate crimes, not three separate elements of the same crime. 

[VakAttack]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

No.  The situation involving your ‘charging in the alternative’ as you stated it, applies to different elements of one law.  Whereas, in this trial, the judge is saying the jurors can find that he is guilty if he intended to commit any of three separate crimes.  One of campaign finance; one of tax; and one of falsifying bank records.  Three separate crimes, not three separate elements of the same crime. 

No, it's the same law.  One of the elements is that he was trying to conceal or commit a new crime.  It's not required to limit the charging to one crime he was trying to conceal or commit, they've said he can be guilty if you believe he was trying to conceal or commit crime A OR crime B OR crime C.  It's a single element of the crime, but the prosecutor essentially gets three bites at proving that element.

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, PortaJohn said:

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

The judge is including alternate jurors in all the proceedings, leading speculation that he will simply replace jurors who vote against conviction.  

[NM1965]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The judge is including alternate jurors in all the proceedings, leading speculation that he will simply replace jurors who vote against conviction.  

My understanding is that's common in big trials. Oftentimes criminals bribe jurors or jurors are found to have lied during their jury selection process. 

Trump, hopefully, will be found guilty of his crimes in that case. And we're just scratching the surface. 

Edited May 30 by NM1965

[PortaJohn]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The judge is including alternate jurors in all the proceedings, leading speculation that he will simply replace jurors who vote against conviction.  

I was under the assumption that in any high profile or lengthy trial having alternate jurors at hand is the norm.  Never heard of a juror being replaced during deliberation solely to get a certain outcome.  Seems this is qanon level conspiracy nonsense. 

[WrestlingRasta]

3 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

I was under the assumption that in any high profile or lengthy trial having alternate jurors at hand is the norm.  Never heard of a juror being replaced during deliberation solely to get a certain outcome.  Seems this is qanon level conspiracy nonsense. 

It is extremely regular to have alternate jurors, you don't have to take a law class to understand that. 

But......anything to stir the flock, and boy can they get stirrin easily..

[PortaJohn]

5 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It is extremely regular to have alternate jurors, you don't have to take a law class to understand that. 

But......anything to stir the flock, and boy can they get stirrin easily..

It's bizarre.  Even myself who thinks this trial is nonsense I've seen nothing indicating there is a plot by the judge to coerce the jury.  

[NM1965]

On 5/29/2024 at 4:42 PM, 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

 

Do you actually believe anything you wrote there? Do you think "the system" is coming after Trump and putting him on trial for things that are unspecified? How do you think things are done in this country? Do you think people are dragged away for trial without knowing what charges they face? That isn't a thing in the USA and if you believe it is then you are in error. 

 

[NM1965]

18 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

It is extremely regular to have alternate jurors, you don't have to take a law class to understand that. 

But......anything to stir the flock, and boy can they get stirrin easily..

The Q morons don't need much to get stirred up. At least they aren't complaining about Jewish space lasers or Democrats running cannibal-pedo cults in pizza parlors anymore. 

[Offthemat]

It’s not the existence of alternate jurors that is being commented on, it’s their utilization that seems uncommon. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

On 5/29/2024 at 12:42 PM, 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

 

You think the Judge is in on it too? 

[PortaJohn]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

It’s not the existence of alternate jurors that is being commented on, it’s their utilization that seems uncommon. 

What specifics?  I'm genuinely curious

[VakAttack]

36 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The judge is including alternate jurors in all the proceedings, leading speculation that he will simply replace jurors who vote against conviction.  

They are included because they may be needed, but they are not allowed to participate in deliberations with the active jurors.  This is the exact purpose of alternate jurors.

[VakAttack]

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/29/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/merchan-speaks-to-the-alternates-00160397

Merchan is now addressing the six alternate jurors, who will play no role in deliberations unless there is a need to substitute them for one of the sitting jurors.

“Every single one of you was very engaged,” Merchan said, thanking them for their service. “Alternate number 3, I think you went through several notebooks.”

He emphasized that the six alternates must continue to refrain from discussing the case with others since it’s possible they could be needed to fill a spot on the jury. “Please remain with us, there might be a need for you at some point during deliberations,” Merchan said

[Bigbrog]

I have no problem if Trump is found guilty if he is guilty.  For me it is a matter of applying our justice system in a consistent matter.  Take away the names of the big players in politics right now, it is blatantly clear...to me...that the justice system is NOT being applied consistently...and it is clear...to me...it is based on political affiliation.  And because it is political, depending on what side of the isle people lean, people will either justify the inequity of the application of the justice system (aka. deny it is happening), or they will question every single move by the justice system.

[VakAttack]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

I have no problem if Trump is found guilty if he is guilty.  For me it is a matter of applying our justice system in a consistent matter.  Take away the names of the big players in politics right now, it is blatantly clear...to me...that the justice system is NOT being applied consistently...and it is clear...to me...it is based on political affiliation.  And because it is political, depending on what side of the isle people lean, people will either justify the inequity of the application of the justice system (aka. deny it is happening), or they will question every single move by the justice system.

There's a Democrat Senator on trial as we speak.

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, VakAttack said:

There's a Democrat Senator on trial as we speak.

Do you honestly think this is the same thing as an ex-president who is also running for president again??  Come on!

[PortaJohn]

Just now, VakAttack said:

There's a Democrat Senator on trial as we speak.

Don't believe that was Bigbrogs point.  All of my friends that are ardent Trump haters see this trial as politically motivated and fear it furthers his victim narrative.  Bragg ran on a campaign to go after Trump and convict him

[VakAttack]

Just now, Bigbrog said:

Do you honestly think this is the same thing as an ex-president who is also running for president again??  Come on!

I'm not sure what your point is.  Are they not supposed to prosecute him because he's a former president?  The jury decides if he's guilty or not.  How is this an example of the justice system not being applied equally?  As a person who participates in the justice system every day, the idea of rich and powerful people facing the justice system is evidence to many of us that's evidence of some equality, since it's typically the poor and powerless who are crushed under the heel of the justice system.

[Bigbrog]

2 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Don't believe that was Bigbrogs point.  All of my friends that are ardent Trump haters see this trial as politically motivated and fear it furthers his victim narrative.  Bragg ran on a campaign to go after Trump and convict him

THIS!

[VakAttack]

4 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

Don't believe that was Bigbrogs point.  All of my friends that are ardent Trump haters see this trial as politically motivated and fear it furthers his victim narrative.  Bragg ran on a campaign to go after Trump and convict him

Bragg was elected in 2021 and isn't up for re-election until 2025.

Edited May 30 by VakAttack

[Offthemat]

11 minutes ago, PortaJohn said:

What specifics?  I'm genuinely curious

One was that though the alternates aren’t in the deliberations, they are included in the judges responses to the jury questions.  Also the question of why are the instructions not written.  May be a way for the judge to maintain closer contact with jury proceedings. 

[PortaJohn]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Bragg was elected in 2021 and isn't up for re-election until 2025.

He campaigned to take on Donald Trump leading up to his election into office.  

[Offthemat]

13 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

There's a Democrat Senator on trial as we speak.

Yes.  A dimocrat senator who bucked Biden.  You may recall that the NY mayor also experienced an investigation after criticizing Biden.  Seems to have gone away now. 

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

I'm not sure what your point is.  Are they not supposed to prosecute him because he's a former president?  The jury decides if he's guilty or not.  How is this an example of the justice system not being applied equally?  As a person who participates in the justice system every day, the idea of rich and powerful people facing the justice system is evidence to many of us that's evidence of some equality, since it's typically the poor and powerless who are crushed under the heel of the justice system.

You choose not to see it being applied unequally because you want them to go after Trump.  And the application of equity has many different facets...one being wealthy versus not wealthy, and another being political in nature.  I am speaking to the political side of things...which you tried to discount by comparing a senator to a president and saying the jury determines guilt.  Not to mention the massive implication this trial (and others upcoming) has on both our political system and our justice system. 

 It is almost like you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth by saying things that indicate the justice system is blind (in Trump's case), but then turn around and admit it isn't (rich vs poor).  You are actually making my original point.