Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury that on each count their verdict must be unanimous.

"That is, each and every juror must agree to it," Merchan says.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now on to instructions as to how the jury should deliberate.

"When you deliberate, you should to do with a view toward reaching an agreement, if that can be done without surrendering individual judgement," he tells the jurors.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now telling jurors that any notes they took are for their own personal recollection, and cannot be used by any other jurors or be used in place of evidence or testimony.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

Ah...

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury that under the law, the first juror that was selected will serve as the foreperson.

Several jurors turned to look at the man seated in the first seat.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan describes the process of how the verdict will play out.
He said the foreperson will be asked if the jury has reached a verdict and then will read out the verdict for each count.
The entire jury will be asked if they agree and at the request of the defense and prosecution, he said, the jurors will be polled individually if they agree with the verdict.

---

Quote:

---

udge Juan Merchan says the jurors will be asked to give their cell phones and any other electronic devices to a court officer while they're engaged in deliberations.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells jurors that they may only discuss the case when all 12 jurors are all together.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan has concluded his jury instructions.
He asked lawyers to come to the bench.
"That concludes my instructions on the law, counsel please approach," Merchan said.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

Ah...

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

I think they have to get all 12 votes but they could be spread across the three reasons.

Quote:

---

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

if its a different 4 people, yes

as instructed, the need each person to go with at least one of the 3 theories.

Quote:

---

udge Juan Merchan tells the jury it is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate running for office, including the presidency, exceeding certain limits which in the relevant years was $2,700.
Merchan says that if a payment would have been made even in the absence of a candidacy, then the payment should not be treated as a contribution.
He also outlines how things like editorials and other media activity is not considered a political contribution, "so long as such activity is a normal, legitimate press function."

---

He should have added that there is no limit to a candidate's contribution to his own campaign. Regardless everything after that throws the FECA violation as a predicate crime off the table.

Seems like the jury foreman will be important

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

Ah...

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

And I didn't see that he instructed them on the law of each of the 3 theories, so how would they know if an actual law was broken?

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says the jury will work until 4:30 p.m. ET today.
"We will figure out the other days going forward," the judge says.
He says if they stay late going forward, it's unlikely they'd work later than 6 p.m. ET.

---

Quote:

---

And I didn't see that he instructed them on the law of each of the 3 theories, so how would they know if an actual law was broken?

---

He did give a thumbnail sketch of the three.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Seems like the jury foreman will be important

---

We learned that in NY, its automatically juror #1, so I do not think they conventional wisdom applies here.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Seems like the jury foreman will be important

---

Guy is from Ireland and works in sales.

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

Ah...

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

This also made me think of this...

Does the jury have to RECORD who voted which way for each theory? So that there will some kind of record to show how they determined the guilt for the object crime?

TexAg1987 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

Ah...

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

And I didn't see that he instructed them on the law of each of the 3 theories, so how would they know if an actual law was broken?

---

Since one of them was federal election law, is he even ALLOWED to instruct them on it?

Quote:

---

Does the jury have to RECORD who voted which way for each theory?

---

Nope.

All that will be recorded is guilty or not guilty for each count.

Quote:

---

The jurors are now leaving the courtroom to deliberate. The alternates are staying behind.
Judge Juan Merchan thanks the alternates for their diligence. Merchan says he can honestly say all the jurors were engaged. He speaks to one juror and says he saw that juror went through several notebooks.
"We're not going to excuse you just yet. Please remain with us because there might be a need for you at some point during deliberations," he tells the alternates.
"You've been with us for a long time, and you've been incredibly diligent, incredibly hard working," Merchan says to the alternates.

---

That sucks.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury there will be a laptop that contains all of the evidence. He says jurors will have free access to the evidence laptop so they won't have to ask for a specific piece every time they want to look at something

He asks for volunteers to be taught how to use the laptop. Juror 4 and Juror 6 volunteered.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

if its a different 4 people, yes

as instructed, the need each person to go with at least one of the 3 theories.

---

Lovely...

So, potentially, 2/3 of the jury could reject each theory (because the 8 for each would also be different people) and that is used to determine that it he is guilty? Sounds fair...

Where do 4 and 6 stand in everyone's eyes?

Ag with kids said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

they need 12 "votes" between the 3 theories based on these instructions, which is the subject of much debate on whether proper and will be "issue no. 1" on any appeal.

---

Ah...

So each "theory" could theoretically be rejected 4-8 and they still get to 12 votes to convict.

---

And I didn't see that he instructed them on the law of each of the 3 theories, so how would they know if an actual law was broken?

---

Since one of them was federal election law, is he even ALLOWED to instruct them on it?

---

The prosecutor did yesterday. Trump was not allowed to mount a defense for it.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Does the jury have to RECORD who voted which way for each theory?

---

Nope.

All that will be recorded is guilty or not guilty for each count.

---

Lovely...so now you don't even know if each of the 3 theories was rejected 4-8.

Sounds perfectly fair and legal.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan delivered his instructions to jurors before they began deliberations in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial.
Here's what Merchan told the jury:

• They must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes;
• They must set aside personal differences;
• They must not speculate how long sentencing may be or what the punishment might be that's up to the judge;
• They can't hold it against Trump for not testifying;
• The "people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime." He reminds the jury it must not rest its verdict on speculation;
• They can consider whether a witness hopes to receive a benefit related to the trial, or if they have an interest in how the case ends;
• They cannot convict Trump on Michael Cohen's testimony alone because he's an accomplice, but they can use his evidence if corroborated with other evidence;
• The jury must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both;
• They must determine if Trump conspired to promote someone or prevent them from public office by unlawful means;
• They should deliberate with a view toward reaching an agreement, without surrendering individual judgement;
• Jurors notes cannot be used in place of evidence;
• The foreperson will deliver the verdict for each count after deliberations are over;
• They must surrender their phones, and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together.

Merchan explained some key laws in the case:
On the law applicable to falsifying business records, Merchan told the jury:
"You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he solicited requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct and second that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense."
He also explained what makes a person guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree explaining that they must have the intent to defraud including the intent to commit another crime or conceal the commission of one.
On what constitutes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act: It is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate running for office, including the presidency, exceeding certain limits which in the relevant years was $2,700, Merchan tells the jury.
He also walked the jury through what they must find in the different counts levelled against Trump. Merchan explained what tax law violations were and said it was unlawful for a person to willfully produce a tax statement or document that's false.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is off the bench as the jury deliberates.

"I'm going to be in the robing room for a little while just in case we get a quick note. Then I'll probably go upstairs," Merchan said before he left the bench. "I do direct all of you to be please here. You cannot leave the building."

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Does the jury have to RECORD who voted which way for each theory?

---

Nope.

All that will be recorded is guilty or not guilty for each count.

---

Lovely...so now you don't even know if each of the 3 theories was rejected 4-8.

Sounds perfectly fair and legal.

---

The jurors will talk. Every station in America will want to interview them.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is off the bench as the jury deliberates.

"I'm going to be in the robing room for a little while just in case we get a quick note. Then I'll probably go upstairs," Merchan said before he left the bench. "I do direct all of you to be please here. You cannot leave the building."

---

---

Kinda sounds like he's expecting a quick verdict.

Quote:

---

Kinda sounds like he's expecting a quick verdict.

---

That or he expects he has sufficiently confused the jury that he expects a lot of questions from them.

Just my theory.

If the verdict comes in super quick, like in an hour or two, then it will be not guilty. The jurors will have taken an initial vote and everyone said, "WTF is all of this?"

If the verdict comes at the end of the day, then it's guilty. The jury knows the stakes of everything, so they will want to at least pretend they deliberated before announcing guilty.

If it goes to tomorrow, it's going to end up a hung jury. As with everything Trump, no one changes their views. If they don't agree on the first vote, they will never agree

TheRatt87 said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

rgag12 said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

NDA's are not illegal

---

Kinda where I keep getting stuck. NDA's are used all the time and it isn't uncommon for someone to be paid $$ in return for keeping confidential information private. Not sure how the public was somehow harmed, or owed, this information.

---

It's all tied to election interference. From my casual and infrequent observations, seems like they're saying that the information that they were trying to bury somehow was going to swing the election in Hillary's favor, thus it was election interference.

Again, the real law that was broken was Trump existing.

---

This trial is election interference then. Hillary claiming Trump peed on Russian hookers via paying for a bogus dossier is election interference. Comey not prosecuting Hillary for her email server and destruction of evidence was election interference.

A complete and total joke this trial.

---

And the only way this ever stops is when Hillary, Comey, Obama, etc are dragged into criminal & civil court in a deep red area with a judge, DA & jury biased against them and deal with similar lawfare.

To stop, they have to fear that the same approach will be used against them. But they don't, so they won't.

---

Bingo. Time to exact some revenge persecutions.

Whatever the outcome, it will make perfect sense.

Guilty: heavily biased Manhattan jury

Not Guilty: The case was so weak even a heavily biased Manhattan jury couldn't convict

Hung Jury: Trump got lucky and there was at least one fair-minded hold out on the jury

SwigAg11 said:

---

pacecar02 said:

---

just curious

Did the prosecution ever offer evidence of how the records should have been entered into the books?

---

I've been wondering myself if the prosecution ever offered how they should have been classified. Reimbursement, if that was an option in their accounting system?

---

Ok, so lets think about this. The state's contention is that the money was not "legal services", but instead "hush money" and should have been recorded some other way. So if Cohen had paid out of his pocket for a former intelligence operative to make up a bunch of salacious stories about Trump's political opponent and then shop them around to the media, would that be legal services? If he paid his lawyer to draw up a routine non-disclosure agreement that the lawyer paid for and then invoiced the client for, how is that not "legal services"? Lawyers do that all the time! They pay for things and then bill the client for them. Why is this one instance required to be treated differently?