Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed
(www.politico.com)
🚔 Crime & Democrats 💸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
This is hyper technically right but misses the boat. Every juror need only believe it beyond a reasonable doubt as to the particular predicate crime they think he was trying to hide… they could theoretically all be in agreement that he was trying to hide a crime and disagree on which crime.
But if they disagree on which crime, then no one juror can believe it beyond a reasonable doubt. They’re in a jury and fellow jurors disagree.
The best way to address this is to give this instruction and poll the jurors on the predicate crime. If they disagree then throw out the verdict.
How can he be convicted, if the predicate crime is not even specified? Has this ever happened before?
Sounds not that dissimilar from resisting arrest when there is no charge behind the arrest thus meaning there was no reason to effect an arrest in the first place, but you resisted the baseless unfounded arrest so you get convicted of that.
Right, and yet no arrest can be made in the first place, unless there is a reasonable basis to believe a specific crime has been commited AND probable cause to believe that this person committed that crime.
An arrest without reasonable articulable suspicion and probable cause are unlawful, and an act under color of law, not under law, subjecting anyone engaging in a false arrest to be subject to criminal and civil penalties.
This means the person was not resisting arrest, but instead was defending against coercion, assault/battery, and false imprisonment.
There has to be proof of at least one predicate crime, the issue arises when there is proof of multiple possible predicates. The Judge’s idea is that they can all agree “a” predicate was provided beyond a reasonable doubt, but which? If they can’t agree on which, then it’s hard to say any one of them believes the predicate beyond a reasonable doubt.
How can there be proof of a predicate crime if none is even specified by the prosecution? I don’t think any proof was even presented
And how can a defendant prepare and put up a case against a predicate crime if none is specified in the indictment or even during the damn trial?
Of course, this is exactly the intent of Bragg, Eisen, and their Lawfare cabal.
I bet that Merchan gave the jury this weekend off so that the "beach friends" can have time to meet up and continue their evil plotting against PDJT.
Well then that would be a problem. Maybe it was discussed during the trial? Idk
It has been.
I believe 3 possible predicates were mentioned
I know that one was specifically mentioned in opening arguments
These jury instructions will be given to the jury.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #1 as the predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #2 as a predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime, either.
And so on.
This begs the question: If the prosecution really thinks he was guilty of any of the underlying "predicate crimes," then why did they not charge him with one or more of those crimes, and instead go after something else that is supposedly based on some other crime for which he is NOT presumed to be guilty?
Seems like an appeal would throw out this shit show -- and should land the judge and prosecutor in a jail cell, looking for bail money and a defense attorney.
To answer why, this is an attempt to confuse civil and criminal burdens. In a civil case the fact that a crimes was committed can be determined by a preponderance of the evidence (for the purposes of the civil case). They want to get away with doing that in a criminal case where they have to prove the predicate beyond a reasonable doubt.
Aren't the judge and prosecutor insulated from this? Prosecutor can be admonished for bringing nuisance cases, I would think, but up to the Judge to throw out the case.
Judges cannot violate the law.
They do it all the time, and are rarely ever held accountable, but they can and should be held accountable.
The judicial system is corrupt BECAUSE the PEOPLE who work within that system are the ones who MAKE it corrupt -- the judges and attorneys.
The only way to clean up the corruption is to take out the garbage.