BMX Bandit said:

---

To me, because the unlawful means alleged is literally the violation of another statute, it would seem unanimity wouid be required. Case law aside, I think it should.

This would be great case for scotus because the sides would be very different for an "ordinary" defendant. I 100% guarantee sotomayor would say unanimous required if it was some poor minority accused. With Trump, she'll have a change of heart.

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

maroon man said:

---

This is naive but how can what the Judge said not be overturned by a higher court? Everything I've read says this was illegal & basically saying to the jury find a way to convict.

Surely there are judge oversights ?

---

There is and it will almost 100% be overturned but in the mean time between now and the election, Dementia Joe and every leftist talking head get to run around screaming "Convicted Felon!!!!!" That is the goal. That is all they care about. Precedent and the Constitution be damned.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is in the courtroom as the jury is set to continue to deliberate on the hush money case against Donald Trump.
The jurors will likely start the day off with a readback of four separate parts of witness testimony as well as a repeat of the judge's instructions on the lawrequests that they submitted to the court while deliberating yesterday.
Here are the pieces of testimony the jury requested:

• Pecker's testimony about his phone conversation with Trump in June 2016
• Pecker's testimony about not finalizing Trump's payment to AMI for Karen McDougal's life rights
• Pecker's testimony about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting
• Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting

Jurors also want to re-hear Merchan's instructions on the law that he had given them yesterday.
Merchan has asked the jury to clarify this morning whether they wanted the entire, hourlong presentation to be read back, or if there were just portions of it that they needed to hear one more time.

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't know when they knew it, but in the jury instructions they submitted two weeks ago, they only listed one predicate crime.

I suspect they've known along, because you never actually heard them make any arguments that they didn't know what the crime was. At least none that I ever saw.


It's incredibly convoluted. There is only one predicate crime, but here are three crimes that you may consider to determine if the predicate crime was committed.


Unless you were reading every single brief and at every hearing, it's easy to see how people would be confused. Myself included


And one of those theories is that Trump caused fraudulent documents to be made in order to promote himself to elected office, by Using fraudulent documents.

The more I think about this, I think that there may be a very strong point for Trump. I don't see how you can have the original crime through the unlawful means of that same crime.

Telling the jury they may consider that seems to be erroneous

---

HAPPENING NOW: The jury says it wants Merchan to begin the instructions with the part about how they are supposed to consider the evidence and draw inferences -- including the metaphor about how if the ground is wet in the AM, you can infer it rained over night.

— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 30, 2024

LMCane said:

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

maroon man said:

---

This is naive but how can what the Judge said not be overturned by a higher court? Everything I've read says this was illegal & basically saying to the jury find a way to convict.

Surely there are judge oversights ?

---

There is and it will almost 100% be overturned but in the mean time between now and the election, Dementia Joe and every leftist talking head get to run around screaming "Convicted Felon!!!!!" That is the goal. That is all they care about. Precedent and the Constitution be damned.

---

it's almost as if those who said:

"let's nominate someone for President NOT convicted of a fraudulent felony"

may have had a valid point!

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan also said he would include all of the disputed witness testimony that had been discussed yesterday in the readback to the jury.
That includes another new section pointed out by prosecutor Joshua Steinglass.
Remember: After the jury was dismissed Wednesday, attorneys for both sides hashed out which sections of testimony would be read to the jurors. They requested three sections of testimony involving AMI chief David Pecker, and one section involving Michael Cohen's testimony about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting.

---

Quote:

---

The second request in the note is for headphones to use with the evidence laptop.

Judge Juan Merchan says they can provide them headphones or speakers. Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass suggests they give them both.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he will read pages six to 35 of the jury instructions.
More context: The jury was not given a written copy of Merchan's charging instructions when they began deliberating yesterday. While most federal judges will send the actual document with the jury as it deliberates, New York state courts forbid this practice.
Merchan told the court moments ago that the jury is requesting the re-reading of the judge's instructions starting with how the jury considers facts and what inferences they can be drawn from it, including a metaphor about rain.
The jury is also asking to hear the instructions related to the charges for count one.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says the jury has requested several parts of his instructions to them be re-read, including a metaphor about rain.
Here's that metaphor, which was originally read in court yesterday:

Quote:

---

"For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas."

---

---

Quote:

---

Did the idge really use that metaphor? That's full of logical holes.

---

Quote:

---

Interestingly, the jury's focus is on the inference instructions, rather than corroboration or perjury, which would have centered on Cohen. These inference sections will guide the jury on how to interpret the implications of testimony. Cohen's testimony, while not directly establishing Trump's knowledge or intent, allows prosecutors to argue for inferences based on the evidence.

Similarly, Pecker's testimony connected his actions to the election, and the jury needs to decide how much they can infer about Trump's knowledge and approval from the Trump Tower meeting accounts.

The emphasis on inference rather than corroboration or perjury suggests that Cohen's testimony might not be the primary hurdle. Instead, the jury is considering the weight of Pecker's testimony and its implications. Notably, while they request mostly Pecker's accounts, they also ask for a passage from Cohen's testimony, indicating both play a role in their deliberations.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Did the idge really use that metaphor? That's full of logical holes.

---

That's quite common.

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

What's quite common? That seems like a really unfair statment to make for the defendant that implies an assumption can be made in the absence of evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury they've located the relevant excerpts for the read back and are ready to do that shortly.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan has started reading the jury instructions back.
The reading came after the jury foreman asked aloud in court to have the instructions read back first.
Merchan said earlier that pages six to 35 will be read.

---

Quote:

---

One of the jurors is scribbling notes as Judge Juan Merchan re-reads the rain metaphor section about inferring from facts.
"An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably, and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative," Merchan reads.
These instructions were originally read to the jury yesterday, but the jurors have requested parts of them be read to them again.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now re-reading the part of his instructions to the jury that cover reasonable doubt.
The instructions say in part: "Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity as the person who committed the crime."
"Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest upon baseless speculation. Nor may it be influenced in any way by bias, prejudice, sympathy or by a desire to bring an end to your deliberations or to avoid an unpleasant duty," Merchan adds.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now re-reading the part of his instructions to the jury that cover reasonable doubt.
The instructions say in part: "Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you so firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt that you have no reasonable doubt of the existence of any element of the crime or of the defendant's identity as the person who committed the crime."
"Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest upon baseless speculation. Nor may it be influenced in any way by bias, prejudice, sympathy or by a desire to bring an end to your deliberations or to avoid an unpleasant duty," Merchan adds.

---

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan, meanwhile, is moving through the "credibility of witnesses" section for his instructions to the jury.

This part of the jury instructions says they "may consider whether a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie" and "may consider whether a witness hopes for or expects to receive a benefit for testifying."

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now re-reading the part of his instructions to the jury regarding how the law addresses the concept of an accomplice.
The instructions say in part: "Under our law, Michael Cohen is an accomplice because there is evidence that he participated in a crime based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant."
"Our law is especially concerned about the testimony of an accomplice who implicates another in the commission of a crime, particularly when the accomplice has received, expects or hopes for a benefit in return for his testimony."
The takeaway for jurors is that, "Even if you find the testimony of Michael Cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon that testimony unless you also find that it was corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime," Merchan tells them.

---

Quote:

---

Trump's chin is resting on his chest as Judge Juan Merchan goes through requirement to find the defendant guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree.
This part of the jury instructions reads, in part:

Quote:

---

"The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the state of mind required for the commission of the crime, and either personally, or by acting in concert with another person, committed each of the remaining elements of the crime. Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both."

---

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is re-reading the definitions in the law for enterprise, business record and intent.
"As I previously explained, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. In order to prove an intent to defraud, the people need not prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any particular person or entity. A general intent to defraud any person or entity suffices. Intent to defraud is also not constricted to an intent to deprive another of property or money and can extend beyond economic concerns," Merchan says.
Merchan also goes over the part of the law that raises the charge to a felony: "For the crime of falsifying business records in the first degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. Under our law, although the people must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed."

---

Quote:

---

Some jurors are taking notes as Judge Juan Merchan moves through this section:
"The people allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152.
Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election."
And now for the "unlawful means" explanation: "Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws."

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan has finished rereading the jury instructions. They are now turning to the readback of the some key witness testimony, including Michael Cohen and David Pecker.

---

Quote:

---

After re-reading through parts of the jury instructions, Judge Juan Merchan asks the jurors, "Was that responsive to you?"

The jury foreperson answers, "yes."

---

Wabs said:

---

Jury taking it's time at the crime buffet the judge gave them. No need for unanimity or majority. Each one trying to pick which crime they like best.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Wabs said:

---

Jury taking it's time at the crime buffet the judge gave them. No need for unanimity or majority. Each one trying to pick which crime they like best.

---

Sunay Brunch Buffet. And we will not know which predicate crimes they used to reach their verdict in the absence of a Special Verdict form.

---

Quote:

---

One court reporter is reading the questions while the court reporter sitting in the witness seat reads the answers to the questions.
The two court reporters, both women, are reading as the lawyer and witness, both speaking with classic New York accents.
Most of the jurors are watching the court reporters reading. Some are taking notes.
The first one is David Pecker's testimony about the call with Trump.

---