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.
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.
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.
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.