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.