If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #1 as the predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #2 as a predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime, either.
And so on.
This begs the question: If the prosecution really thinks he was guilty of any of the underlying "predicate crimes," then why did they not charge him with one or more of those crimes, and instead go after something else that is supposedly based on some other crime for which he is NOT presumed to be guilty?
Seems like an appeal would throw out this shit show -- and should land the judge and prosecutor in a jail cell, looking for bail money and a defense attorney.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #1 as the predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #2 as a predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime, either.
And so on.
This begs the question: If the prosecution really thinks he was guilty of any of the underlying "predicate crimes," then why did they not charge him with one or more of those crimes, and instead go after something else that is supposedly based on some other crime for which he is NOT presumed to be guilty?
Seems like an appeal would throw out this shit show -- and should land the judge in a jail cell, looking for bail money and an attorney to defend him.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #1 as the predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime.
If they cannot unanimously agree that he was guilty of Crime #2 as a predicate crime, then they cannot convict based on that underlying crime, either.
And so on.
This begs the question: If he prosecution really thinks he was guilty of any of the underlying "predicate crimes," then why did they not charge him with one or more of those crimes, and instead go after something else that is supposedly based on some other crime for which he is NOT presumed to be guilty?
Seems like an appeal would throw out this shit show -- and should land the judge in a jail cell, looking for bail money and an attorney to defend him.