|
Post by cadman on May 30, 2024 18:08:57 GMT -5
Yes, the jury does. The jury had to agree there was a secondary crime. they did not all have to agree on what that crime was. Some could think it was campaign finance, others could say tax evasion. I think it would have to be on the jury decision form to meet the requirement of the guilty verdict. I do not know if that form is public record or not. That’s why its going to be overturned. There’s no world in which that isn’t a Due Process violation (for the jury to not agree unanimously what the crime was). The jury agreed on what the 34 crimes were. They were not convicting him of the secondary crime. They only had to agree there was a secondary crime that made it a felony. I do not see how that is a due process violation.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 30, 2024 18:09:24 GMT -5
I do think an instruction was illegal and will be reversible error. But that’s irrelevant. The point isn’t to keep him convicted. The goal is to turn off just enough voters that otherwise would have voted against Biden. The reversals of the convictions won’t happen for a couple of years. what was illegal about the instructions? I answered it above. They would have needed to specifically find what crime the act was in furtherance of and specified it in their verdict form. The result will be the felony will be overturned and convictions for the lesser misdemeanors imposed.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 30, 2024 18:10:42 GMT -5
what was illegal about the instructions? I answered it above. They would have needed to specifically find what crime the act was in furtherance of and specified it in their verdict form. The result will be the felony will be overturned and convictions for the lesser misdemeanors imposed. They may have specified on the verdict form, we have not seen that as far as I know.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 30, 2024 18:10:58 GMT -5
That’s why its going to be overturned. There’s no world in which that isn’t a Due Process violation (for the jury to not agree unanimously what the crime was). The jury agreed on what the 34 crimes were. They were not convicting him of the secondary crime. They only had to agree there was a secondary crime that made it a felony. I do not see how that is a due process violation. The elements of the other crimes have to be spelled out in the jury instructions and the jury has to state what crime they all unanimously think he committed.
|
|
|
Post by bridgeman213 on May 30, 2024 18:11:33 GMT -5
How nice! You know Hitler imprisoned his opposition. History never repeats itself right?? We're real close to socialism.. change my mind
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 30, 2024 18:12:06 GMT -5
I answered it above. They would have needed to specifically find what crime the act was in furtherance of and specified it in their verdict form. The result will be the felony will be overturned and convictions for the lesser misdemeanors imposed. They may have specified on the verdict form, we have not seen that as far as I know. They may have. I am aware that going in they were instructed they don’t have to be unanimous in that finding, which is error.
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on May 30, 2024 18:16:37 GMT -5
How nice! You know Hitler imprisoned his opposition. History never repeats itself right?? We're real close to socialism.. change my mind I mean like fire depts, post offices, social security and Medicare? Or a criminals crimes catching up to him? Can we get healthcare? I feel like I pay enough taxes already I should have healthcare. And while we're are at it can my tax dollars stop subsidizing multi-billion dollar corporations by feeding and housing their employees? That's really the kinda socialism I can't stand behind
|
|
|
Post by PolarsStepdad on May 30, 2024 18:17:31 GMT -5
And Bullfrog thank you for your analysis. It's good to see it from an educated viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 30, 2024 18:19:04 GMT -5
They may have specified on the verdict form, we have not seen that as far as I know. They may have. I am aware that going in they were instructed they don’t have to be unanimous in that finding, which is error. They had to be unanimous that there was a secondary crime. They did not have to agree on what the unlawful violations that created that secondary crime was. According to the news reports: Prosecutors alleged that the secondary crime is a New York election law that criminalizes conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
The unlawful means identified by prosecutors were violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, or violations of tax laws. Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to unanimously agree on what the “unlawful means” was.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on May 30, 2024 18:27:57 GMT -5
How nice! You know Hitler imprisoned his opposition. History never repeats itself right?? We're real close to socialism.. change my mind This isn't Hitler imprisoning his opposition. This is Hitler being convicted of crimes after his first term but before he decided to start marching to the west on the road to WW2.
And oh what a better world it would have been if the German people had been brave enough to do the same.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on May 30, 2024 18:28:09 GMT -5
They may have. I am aware that going in they were instructed they don’t have to be unanimous in that finding, which is error. They had to be unanimous that there was a secondary crime. They did not have to agree on what the unlawful violations that created that secondary crime was. According to the news reports: Prosecutors alleged that the secondary crime is a New York election law that criminalizes conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
The unlawful means identified by prosecutors were violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, or violations of tax laws. Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to unanimously agree on what the “unlawful means” was.
What I’m telling you is, that ruling is likely wrong and will be a violation of Trump’s Due Process.
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on May 30, 2024 18:28:28 GMT -5
Wanna bet?
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on May 30, 2024 18:31:09 GMT -5
Retards: "it's not political its about law and order"
Retard in Chief:"There’s only one way to keep Donald Trump out of the Oval Office: At the ballot box,”
|
|
|
Post by cadman on May 30, 2024 18:32:20 GMT -5
They had to be unanimous that there was a secondary crime. They did not have to agree on what the unlawful violations that created that secondary crime was. According to the news reports: Prosecutors alleged that the secondary crime is a New York election law that criminalizes conspiracy “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”
The unlawful means identified by prosecutors were violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, or violations of tax laws. Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the jury did not have to unanimously agree on what the “unlawful means” was.
What I’m telling you is, that ruling is likely wrong and will be a violation of Trump’s Due Process. It is under New York law. I found the actual jury instructions. www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on May 30, 2024 18:36:30 GMT -5
The jury agreed on what the 34 crimes were. They were not convicting him of the secondary crime. They only had to agree there was a secondary crime that made it a felony. I do not see how that is a due process violation. The elements of the other crimes have to be spelled out in the jury instructions and the jury has to state what crime they all unanimously think he committed. Why do you waste your time? Serious question
|
|