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:
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