Tje judge needs to face charges for this. He belongs behind bars for what he has done. Id imagine that you wouldn't have to dig that deep to find even more cases of him violating the law and civil rights.
Is it though? The SC's decision on this can't be retroactively applied to Trump's case, which was already completed. It's nutty that people even think this.
Now, should Trump win his appeal for that case, and gets a retrial, and doesn't get a unanimous jury decision, then the SC's decision comes into play. But those are a lot of ifs there.
When not viewed solely as being good or bad for Trump, it doesn't seem as so much of a win. This will most likely result on less sentence time for violent, repeat offenders. So, yeah, I just don't see this as a great win.
No. I don't need to be a lawyer to know you can't retroactively apply a SC decision to cases that have already concluded.
You can appeal a case, hoping that you'll benefit from the ruling, but, no, you don't just strike all prior cases involving non-unanimous jury sentences as being Unconstitutional or invalid.
Just think of how many thousands and thousands of criminals would be released on the streets if you could do that.
Actually it is common knowledge that verdicts need to be unanimous. If the jury vote in the Hush Money case was truly 4-4-4, then the jury needs to go back and deliberate until they do reach a verdict. Otherwise, a hung jury would need to be declared along with a new trial.
Wouldn't this just be cited and used when he appeals to them? So their ruling will be it was wrong and since no mistrial was declared with that fake story about the juror's cousin and stuff, it would have been a hung jury meaning they need to try it again or drop it. Since the retrial would have to be after the election nothing would happen and they would drop it.
As it is under appeal, and the basis of a Supreme Court ruling is generally a reinforcement of something that was already legal/illegal, it is absolutely a nice win.
It's not retroactive, because it's not a totally closed case. Additionally, the assertion would be that it was already a requirement for a unanimous decision and this reinforces that.
It's a compounding factor to be used moving forward.
Also importantly is how this can be used as a talking point.
As it is under appeal, and the basis of a Supreme Court ruling is generally a reinforcement of something that was already legal/illegal, it is absolutely a nice win.
Look at it from a stance other than if it will be good or not for President Trump.
This decision is more favorable to convicted criminals than what it has normally been.
One example, because of this decision, in places like Missouri, judges can't take control of sentencing when juries are deadlocked in determining punishment. Judges are almost always harsher in handing down a sentence than juries are. So convicted criminals will be getting lighter sentencing because of this ruling.
This ruling has more impact than just being used in an appeal for President Trump.
Juries don't decide punishment. The judge does that. The prosecutor asks for a particular punishment but ultimately the judge decides what it is within particular guidelines.juries decide guilty or not guilty and the law requires it be a unanimous decision. This is a two part ruling saying exactly that, as well as preventing judges from stacking sentencing enhancements illegally and or unethically. I think this definitely will help PDJT and the timing is mighty convenient as well.
That is a nice win, now some state needs to charge the yahoos who prosecuted him for election interferance.
Tje judge needs to face charges for this. He belongs behind bars for what he has done. Id imagine that you wouldn't have to dig that deep to find even more cases of him violating the law and civil rights.
Is it though? The SC's decision on this can't be retroactively applied to Trump's case, which was already completed. It's nutty that people even think this.
Now, should Trump win his appeal for that case, and gets a retrial, and doesn't get a unanimous jury decision, then the SC's decision comes into play. But those are a lot of ifs there.
When not viewed solely as being good or bad for Trump, it doesn't seem as so much of a win. This will most likely result on less sentence time for violent, repeat offenders. So, yeah, I just don't see this as a great win.
Are you a lawyer? Why couldn't it be applied to trumps case. Pretty much all such decisions apply to past cases.
No. I don't need to be a lawyer to know you can't retroactively apply a SC decision to cases that have already concluded.
You can appeal a case, hoping that you'll benefit from the ruling, but, no, you don't just strike all prior cases involving non-unanimous jury sentences as being Unconstitutional or invalid.
Just think of how many thousands and thousands of criminals would be released on the streets if you could do that.
Actually it is common knowledge that verdicts need to be unanimous. If the jury vote in the Hush Money case was truly 4-4-4, then the jury needs to go back and deliberate until they do reach a verdict. Otherwise, a hung jury would need to be declared along with a new trial.
Their are no thousands of criminals to be released.
They were all unanimous decistions.
https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=tablet-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=unanimouse+decitions+criminal+cases
Wouldn't this just be cited and used when he appeals to them? So their ruling will be it was wrong and since no mistrial was declared with that fake story about the juror's cousin and stuff, it would have been a hung jury meaning they need to try it again or drop it. Since the retrial would have to be after the election nothing would happen and they would drop it.
As it is under appeal, and the basis of a Supreme Court ruling is generally a reinforcement of something that was already legal/illegal, it is absolutely a nice win.
It's not retroactive, because it's not a totally closed case. Additionally, the assertion would be that it was already a requirement for a unanimous decision and this reinforces that.
It's a compounding factor to be used moving forward.
Also importantly is how this can be used as a talking point.
Look at it from a stance other than if it will be good or not for President Trump.
This decision is more favorable to convicted criminals than what it has normally been.
One example, because of this decision, in places like Missouri, judges can't take control of sentencing when juries are deadlocked in determining punishment. Judges are almost always harsher in handing down a sentence than juries are. So convicted criminals will be getting lighter sentencing because of this ruling.
This ruling has more impact than just being used in an appeal for President Trump.
Juries don't decide punishment. The judge does that. The prosecutor asks for a particular punishment but ultimately the judge decides what it is within particular guidelines.juries decide guilty or not guilty and the law requires it be a unanimous decision. This is a two part ruling saying exactly that, as well as preventing judges from stacking sentencing enhancements illegally and or unethically. I think this definitely will help PDJT and the timing is mighty convenient as well.
He has already been found guilty. He was found guilty before the SC made their decision. All he has left is sentencing.
It's just not going to happen. Go to some of those "ask a lawyer" type boards and see what they say.
Do some research on it. Don't just believe it because you want it to be true. That's all I'm asking. I don't think that's an unreasonable stance.