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?
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
Well then that would be a problem. Maybe it was discussed during the trial? Idk