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.
That's for the vote as to if they're guilty or not guilty.
The SC decision was how the jury ruled on sentencing.
Edited to add: I feel the need to point out that sentencing is when the judge or jury decides what your punishment will be, after you've been found guilty of whatever. Just in case we weren't clear on what sentencing is.
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.
100% agree. The simple argument of they don't want more black/brown men in jail. So those 3 should have been hit with that. "So you want more black/brown men going to jail when not unanimously found guilty?"
I'm betting he appeals the conviction to the SC and points to this. They agree and declare it a hung jury. He would have to be retried which wouldn't happen before the election so they would "try to save face" and drop it claiming they wont interfere with the election.
I have a question to those in the know. Does this mean 8-8-8 thought he was not guilty of each of these three crimes? trying to understand. The whole setup is as rigged as the elections
You can't retroactively apply the SC ruling to trials that were completed before the SC made their decision. This is just Law 101.
He could request an appeal, though. I think he already has, actually. So if he gets a retrial, and the decision isn't unanimous, then the SC's ruling comes into play.
But please don't go around saying this stuff. It just makes us look uninformed on the subject.
No, because it went through appeals, lower courts, and then was heard by the SC before it was ruled upon.
What people are saying here is that they think Trump's court case, during which he was already found guilty, is going to automatically get thrown out because of the SC ruling.
That's just not how it works. He can appeal his case, but that's not the same as retroactively applying the SC decision on cases that have already been heard.
Imagine the hundreds of thousands of cases that would be thrown out if that's how the courts dealt with each SC ruling.
True BUT, he can easily appeal the conviction to them and point to this. They agree and declare it a hung jury so he has to be retried. That CANT happen before the election so it will be dropped so they can "try to save face" and act like they are not interfering with the election.
The issue wasn't the jurors not being able to agree if he was guilty or not, but exactly which crimes involved in falsifying business records he was guilty of. That's what the Twitter post above is talking about with "Trump's jury was not unanimous in its findings on the underlying crime".
They didn't have to be unanimous in which "underlying crimes" related to falsifying business records he was guilty of, simply that he was guilty of at least one of the three.
The different "underlying crimes" that could be applied were:
Falsifying other business records
Breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act
Submitting false information on a tax return
Which of the "underlying crimes" he was determined to be guilty of is important because different crimes carry different punishments. This is where the SC's ruling might be relevant. It deals with the sentencing requiring to be unanimous.
Remember that the verdict is where they find someone guilty or not guilty, and sentencing is where they determine what the punishment is going to be for someone found guilty.
Honestly, I'm not sure how much of it can be applied to Trump's trial on falsifying records, but I'm still reading up on the SC's decision, and how it can be applied.
You can read their decision as well. It's Erlinger vs United States.
I'm sure that it will be brought up when Trump appeals the case. Here's a rundown of what could happen after the appeal:
I'm sure people will just automatically disregard it because "MSM" and all that, but from what I understand, that's how appeals work.
I know it's dissapointing that the SC's ruling can't be retroactively applied to the case, and that Trump's attorneys can't just show someone a print out of the ruling and have Trump's conviction erased.
But I think people need to be a little more grounded in reality, and less addicted to believing whatever they want in order to feel happy. I know that seems harsh, but I see people setting themselves up for huge dissapointments time after time after time here. Eventually people are going to just give up on all of it because they were sucked into some pipe dream fantasy.
And the majority of all this could be avoided by doing some basic fact checking before believing stuff random strangers post on the internet. Read up a little on the subject so you know the basics of what you're talking about. You know, the bare minimum that should be required of an elite research board.
Problem is the underlying crimes were never tried/prosecuted/defended. This area is just a touchy feely thing where jurors get to ride fluffy clouds in the sky until they get a sort of gushy feeling that he must be guilty. This law of using an alleged felony thatwas never tried to begin with and statutes of limitations have run out on to turn misdemeanors into felonies denies the whole idea of due process. This prosecution method in and of itself should be declared unconstitutional.
This could play out anywhere. A bank gets robbed, you have no evidence that so and so robbed the bank but he got a parking ticket 2 blocks away on that day. You know you can't prove him guilty in court of the robbery so you let the statutes of limitations expire and then turn the parking ticket into a felony by just asking the jurors if they think he might be guilty of the bank robbery without ever hearing any evidence. Just plain wrong.
This is so farcical I can only conclude that the white hats have already captured the guy and set him up to do this to show the normies how stupid he is. Or something like that. I mean, would anyone with two brain cells to rub together really come up with what this judge has decided? Gads what weird times.
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
That's for the vote as to if they're guilty or not guilty.
The SC decision was how the jury ruled on sentencing.
Edited to add: I feel the need to point out that sentencing is when the judge or jury decides what your punishment will be, after you've been found guilty of whatever. Just in case we weren't clear on what sentencing is.
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.
... then doesn't that mean (8-8-8) found him NOT guilty ??
Seems like it to me.
Rather horrifying that this wasn't a unanimous decision on the part of SCOTUS.
100% agree. The simple argument of they don't want more black/brown men in jail. So those 3 should have been hit with that. "So you want more black/brown men going to jail when not unanimously found guilty?"
We demand an apology from every swinging dick reporter, newspaper and online forum that has called PDJT a convicted felon.
MERCHAN just got trolled in a big way,and may face judicial misconduct ,INCOMING.
Does this impact trumps conviction directly? Or will this not?
Well, the Democrats do as they please. So, it's a waiting game.
I'm betting he appeals the conviction to the SC and points to this. They agree and declare it a hung jury. He would have to be retried which wouldn't happen before the election so they would "try to save face" and drop it claiming they wont interfere with the election.
I wonder if the 4-4-4 were the same 4x demonrats for each count?
One could easily make that connection.
Pretty sure the dematards knew that going in.
I have a question to those in the know. Does this mean 8-8-8 thought he was not guilty of each of these three crimes? trying to understand. The whole setup is as rigged as the elections
You can't retroactively apply the SC ruling to trials that were completed before the SC made their decision. This is just Law 101.
He could request an appeal, though. I think he already has, actually. So if he gets a retrial, and the decision isn't unanimous, then the SC's ruling comes into play.
But please don't go around saying this stuff. It just makes us look uninformed on the subject.
The verdict was unconstitutional, even before the Supreme Court said it was...
Well, that's certainly going to be brought up in the appeal, then. But it doesn't just automatically nullify his case.
Dumb take. The SC ruled this was unconstitutional. They didnt make new law, its ALWAYS been unconstitutional.
If it was always unconstitutional, then how did they just again find it to be unconstitutional?
Do you even know what the case the SC was ruling on was about? It wasn't about Trump's case.
It wasn't ruling that a jury has to be unanimous in order to find someone guilty of a crime. Yes, that has always been the case.
The ruling was about the jurors being unanimous when sentencing the person.
wasn't the supreme court ruling on a trial that was already completed?
Yes, that's generally how the Supreme Court works.
so retroactively is in play then, right?
No, because it went through appeals, lower courts, and then was heard by the SC before it was ruled upon.
What people are saying here is that they think Trump's court case, during which he was already found guilty, is going to automatically get thrown out because of the SC ruling.
That's just not how it works. He can appeal his case, but that's not the same as retroactively applying the SC decision on cases that have already been heard.
Imagine the hundreds of thousands of cases that would be thrown out if that's how the courts dealt with each SC ruling.
True BUT, he can easily appeal the conviction to them and point to this. They agree and declare it a hung jury so he has to be retried. That CANT happen before the election so it will be dropped so they can "try to save face" and act like they are not interfering with the election.
It wasn't a hung jury to begin with. All 12 jurors found him to be guilty of each of the 34 counts of falsifying business records.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24706406-trump-verdict-sheet
The issue wasn't the jurors not being able to agree if he was guilty or not, but exactly which crimes involved in falsifying business records he was guilty of. That's what the Twitter post above is talking about with "Trump's jury was not unanimous in its findings on the underlying crime".
They didn't have to be unanimous in which "underlying crimes" related to falsifying business records he was guilty of, simply that he was guilty of at least one of the three.
The different "underlying crimes" that could be applied were:
Which of the "underlying crimes" he was determined to be guilty of is important because different crimes carry different punishments. This is where the SC's ruling might be relevant. It deals with the sentencing requiring to be unanimous.
Remember that the verdict is where they find someone guilty or not guilty, and sentencing is where they determine what the punishment is going to be for someone found guilty.
Honestly, I'm not sure how much of it can be applied to Trump's trial on falsifying records, but I'm still reading up on the SC's decision, and how it can be applied.
You can read their decision as well. It's Erlinger vs United States.
I'm sure that it will be brought up when Trump appeals the case. Here's a rundown of what could happen after the appeal:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-appeal-hush-money-trial-guilty-verdict-conviction/
I'm sure people will just automatically disregard it because "MSM" and all that, but from what I understand, that's how appeals work.
I know it's dissapointing that the SC's ruling can't be retroactively applied to the case, and that Trump's attorneys can't just show someone a print out of the ruling and have Trump's conviction erased.
But I think people need to be a little more grounded in reality, and less addicted to believing whatever they want in order to feel happy. I know that seems harsh, but I see people setting themselves up for huge dissapointments time after time after time here. Eventually people are going to just give up on all of it because they were sucked into some pipe dream fantasy.
And the majority of all this could be avoided by doing some basic fact checking before believing stuff random strangers post on the internet. Read up a little on the subject so you know the basics of what you're talking about. You know, the bare minimum that should be required of an elite research board.
Problem is the underlying crimes were never tried/prosecuted/defended. This area is just a touchy feely thing where jurors get to ride fluffy clouds in the sky until they get a sort of gushy feeling that he must be guilty. This law of using an alleged felony thatwas never tried to begin with and statutes of limitations have run out on to turn misdemeanors into felonies denies the whole idea of due process. This prosecution method in and of itself should be declared unconstitutional.
This could play out anywhere. A bank gets robbed, you have no evidence that so and so robbed the bank but he got a parking ticket 2 blocks away on that day. You know you can't prove him guilty in court of the robbery so you let the statutes of limitations expire and then turn the parking ticket into a felony by just asking the jurors if they think he might be guilty of the bank robbery without ever hearing any evidence. Just plain wrong.
This is so farcical I can only conclude that the white hats have already captured the guy and set him up to do this to show the normies how stupid he is. Or something like that. I mean, would anyone with two brain cells to rub together really come up with what this judge has decided? Gads what weird times.