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.
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.