ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Huh. Who could have thought? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 The judge is instructing the jury that trump is already guilty, they just have to choose one of the reasons. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Tommy Eyerolls sticks to the script. No need to check facts or think when having an original thought is never the goal. Just parrot the talking points. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 (edited) Judges usually tell the jury "I have no opinion on the merits of this case. To the extent I have said or done anything to suggest otherwise, you should disregard that. Simply put, I have no interest in your verdict." Many judges include that in their standard instructions. We shall see if this one does although it will hardly be convincing after some of his rulings. We will be listening for any adverse/uncalled witness instructions. In other words, is there any inference to be drawn from the fact that the prosecution (which has the burden of proof) did not call certain witnesses. Is that inference obviated by the fact the defense put up a defense case and also did not call those witnesses? How in depth will the judge go into the elements of the so-called other "crimes"? Does the state have to prove each element of the additional crime? How will the jury know if its a crime if they don't know the elements? --Trey Gowdy, “Sunday Night in America” host and former federal prosecutor The lefty mob hates due process. they just want their pound of flesh. The king again with proving the iron law of projection as its comment was just a tweet Edited May 29 by Tommy Callahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Huh. Who could have thought? Yep. Very clear/specific. I do find it odd that NY courts don't give jurors a written copy of the instructions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous... -- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous... -- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor Is that the same as the standard jury instructions and/or case law for this charge or is it a deviation by Merchan? Edited May 29 by ChiGoose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SCBills Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 The ol’ 4-4-4 trick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 11 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous... -- Jonathan Turley, constitutional law attorney and FNC contributor Turley certainly knows that there is a difference in how the law treats elements vs. means of committing an offense. If all 12 jurors decide that Trump directed the creation of fraudulent records for an unlawful purpose, they don't necessarily have to agree on exactly how he did that. That would be an element, which is not what NY law requires. Got a problem with that, change NY state law. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Turley certainly knows that there is a difference in how the law treats elements vs. means of committing an offense. If all 12 jurors decide that Trump directed the creation of fraudulent records for an unlawful purpose, they don't necessarily have to agree on exactly how he did that. That would be an element, which is not what NY law requires. Got a problem with that, change NY state law. It really feels like some people have (very legitimate) complaints about NYS law but are using that to claim bias or impropriety in this particular case. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Ferguson forever Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said: Is that the same as the standard jury instructions and/or case law for this charge or is it a deviation by Merchan? tell us! you're a lawyer. I've been told you guys never ask a question that you don't already know the answer to... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Just now, ChiGoose said: It really feels like some people have (very legitimate) complaints about NYS law but are using that to claim bias or impropriety in this particular case. I agree. NY law is weird in this area. I suppose there's a reason for it being weird. Maybe because NYS is the financial capital of the USA. I don't know the history. So when I saw Bragg brought this case, I was skeptical. But Bragg is a NY DA, and has NY assistants working for him, and they are right: the case is theoretically solid under NY law. Could the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately find that this felony law is void for vagueness? Sure. They could, and maybe ultimately they will. But the case is first governed by NY law, and would go to the NY mid-level appeals court, and then the NY State Court of Appeals if Trump is convicted. By the way, I see a possible mixed verdict. Trump himself didn't sign some of the checks. Don Jr or Eric did. There's good reason to acquit him on those. But that's only a handful of the 34 counts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Life imitates the Bee again 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 59 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I agree. NY law is weird in this area. I suppose there's a reason for it being weird. Maybe because NYS is the financial capital of the USA. I don't know the history. So when I saw Bragg brought this case, I was skeptical. But Bragg is a NY DA, and has NY assistants working for him, and they are right: the case is theoretically solid under NY law. Could the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately find that this felony law is void for vagueness? Sure. They could, and maybe ultimately they will. But the case is first governed by NY law, and would go to the NY mid-level appeals court, and then the NY State Court of Appeals if Trump is convicted. By the way, I see a possible mixed verdict. Trump himself didn't sign some of the checks. Don Jr or Eric did. There's good reason to acquit him on those. But that's only a handful of the 34 counts. Yeah, I think there were about 10 checks Trump himself didn’t sign. Could see the jury not going for those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 35 minutes ago, B-Man said: Life imitates the Bee again They just keep puking MSNBC paid talking heads, like it's their own thought. Sad and pathetic. But the. Again, Dems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiGoose Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Tommy Eyerolls sticks to the script. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 1 minute ago, ChiGoose said: Tommy Eyerolls sticks to the script. It seems to me that he's calling Turley one of the MSNBC talking heads. Which is, umm, right on brand ... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 I think our local experts are posting from the event.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 1 minute ago, Tommy Callahan said: I think our local experts are posting from the event.... Just the PPP Annual Meet-Up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Callahan Posted May 29 Share Posted May 29 Just now, The Frankish Reich said: Just the PPP Annual Meet-Up. The Fifi in here cheering on the kangaroo court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts