Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed
(www.politico.com)
🚔 Crime & Democrats 💸
Comments (59)
sorted by:
BS article from Politico.
If you didn't already hate the Fake News.
We do already hate the fake news.
But we needed more proof that this is a bullshit case in a kangaroo court: Jurors don't have to agree on a crime to convict a man as a criminal in our 2-tiered system of pseudojustice.
Other countries be like "Emulate the American system of freedom and justice? Yeah, no thanks. It's a shit-show, and the shit is the star!"
Hate for fake news will increase exponentially during the next 6 months.
Classic post from you.
As in, it has already gotten old and you're what, 20 days old?
It's BS that they play this game, but if a dude "killed" a black dude they get to intimidate or threaten jurors until they all agree, but when it comes that some jurors may not agree against Trump, it doesn't matter because it's (D)ifferent.
OK. This is an old article from when they discussed jury instructions after the defense rested. But the judge did say this.
Some of the decisiona were held off on, but this was announced in court
It will be expanded on in a written ruling.
He told the lawyers this would be done Thursday night
So it's possible the lawyers already know
In fact, the jury need not deliberate at all. The verdict has already been decided by the court's Illuminati masters.
Oh O.K. So you can literally vote to convict because Orange Man Bad.
He's bees guilty a bein' Orange, yo...and what not.
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.
It was mentioned in another court filing
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.
Even if it is entirely bogus they would lock him up at their most opportune time and worry later about admitting they had erred. That's how desperate they are.
Gateway Pundit also reporting same.
There are two lawyers on the jury. Will be interesting to see how they view that and the way they vote. If it is a hung jury, I guess we will have our answer.
Half the FBI and DOJ are lawyers, too. Doesn't mean a thing.
It depends on if they are “orange man bad” types
Wow, that's great news! That means all the deep staters on Ivan The Terrible's hit list can be rounded up and we won't have to agree as to what the crime was...think Coment Pizza... just that something fishy is going on and the people there look creepy as hell. Guilty! Next.
That will save the taxpayers a lot of money. We could get through those 300,000 (ir whatever?) sealed indictments in a day or two. Three maybe , if we want to give the illusion we're actually thinking about the verdict
That's not what this ruling says.
It says “We”(judge and prosecutor) think he’s guilty as fuck of something. We can’t agree on what it is specifically, but no matter. Like a Soviet court, bring in the guilty party and we’ll find the crime. Here they can’t even do that.
The Democrat communist apparatchiks need to convict Trump of something, anything. They are trying to frame him with novel theories, smear him with accusations in an attempt to thwart his popularity. Never mind every legal scholar thinks the cases against him should have been thrown out long ago.
Never mind that Merchan’s daughter is raking in $millions working for the Democrat party. That alone should have caused him to recuse himself from day one.
In clown world reality is turned on its head. It’s apparent to everyone that their desperation is so blatant it can only come from a place of fear. Fear of their own crimes coming to light if they fail to get him off the ballot. That’s what this ruling says to me.
This judge has received millions in “donations” to produce a guilty verdict. After the train wreck that was Alvin Bragg, he’s trying to change the rules of the game. I wonder how much he’s been threatened.
So why bother with a jury?
Just let Little Hitler invent a charge, and find him guilty
This is why we need rope. Lots and lots of environmentally sustainable, reusable, American made Hemp rope. 24 hours as a wind chime; then another 24 hours as a bird feeder.
It’s a black letter law due process violation. The Supreme Court is clear on unanimity.
https://x.com/greta/status/1794514093669282232
Thanks, fren! This is brilliant! Not that the Left cares about laws, but it’s good to know that they are going to violate ANOTHER one to try to get OMB!!
It's a make up the rules as you go world for them. They got used to that, and now they'll have to get used to being seen for what they really are.
This makes my head hurt. They are having the jury invent the crime since the law didn't specify one? It's like me getting a speeding ticket and the jury being told to convict me of trying to get away from either a robbery or a murder for which no evidence exists.
Even worse. You weren't even speeding in the first place.
Right.
Seems like he should have been tried and convicted of one of these "Predicate" crimes separately first, before this case was ever brought to trial. This creates a loophole around due process. The jury gets to convict him on one of these predicate crimes with no chance to defend himself or bring evidence to prove his innocence of the predicate crime. Innocent until proven guilty is being tossed to the wind in this case. The idea that everyone should agree whether he is guilty of some Predicate crime without a full blown trial around that crime is just so wrong. They couldn't prove guilt on these crimes before the statutes of limitations ran out is the reason he was not not prosecuted on them, and now a jury with no trial can just declare him guilty of one of these crimes?
Here's the three possible predicate crimes.
One is tax fraud. One is a violation of federal election law, and one is a violation of a NY election law
https://lawfare-assets-new.azureedge.net/assets/images/default-source/article-images/1-(1).jpg?sfvrsn=6128ab6d_3
The DA proposed 4, but the judge ruled one out
Judge's ruling https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/2024-02-15-order-denying-motion-to-dismiss-people-v-donaldtrump-2-15-24decision-1.pdf
I am sure Trump will be convicted in this first trial, then he will win his appeal. There is no way NY will clear the charges.
The jury must be unanimous as to the "series" of underlying offenses in a CCE prosecution That is, the jury must unanimouslyagree not only that the defendant committed some "continuing series of violations," but also about which specific "violations" make up that continuing series. Richardson v United States, 119 S. Ct 1707 (1999)
Yeah, no that's not gonna work; because from the public's perspective it is REALLY bad optics using the "predicate" strategy! These idiots have REALLY stretched the legal limits too far. So much so that it is exposing their "GET TRUMP" political agenda all at the same time.
What happens if they convict because I'm afraid a leftist NY jury will do that?
They can convict him, it will be appealed and overturned. Then, in a future RICO case, Smith, Willis, Merchan, Engoron, Garland, ect, ect can all be charged with a variety of crimes and the jury need not agree on any one crime, pick one from the list.
Let me guess...the "state" was injured...f off with that noise. Y'all are itchin for the gallows.
bull shit, isn't that called a hung jury, if only 1 jury member is out of align with the others a mis trial is to be declared
Would be hilarious if there's some sort of clause in Devolution/COG that he cannot be charged, and somehow flips back to the jury for sedition or treason and they have no clue. Then when the shit is rolled out they are arrested for these crimes under MIL Law. lol.
I am 5, please explain this to me. Seems crooked