TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee, none of the other legal pundits following this case, chapter and verse and having the written jury instructions believe that doesn't say they don't require unanimity on the predicate crime.

Nor is it even remotely clear that any of those other crimes were ever presented to the grand jury. Now Bragg created a Statement of Facts after the indictment but that is not properly part of the grand jury's decisions.

What makes this issue all the more disquieting is that Merchan presided over that grand jury and would kno what was and was not presented to them. If these other theories were bootstrapped into trial but never presented to grand jury?

---

The jury must agree on the predicate crime per the jury instructions. The jury has to unanimously agree that Trump had intent to aid, conceal, or commit a violation of New York Law 17-152.

Page 43 of the jury instructions:

Quote:

---

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW 17-152 PREDICATE

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.

---

New York Law 17-152 says it is a crime for "any two 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 a misdemeanor."

What the jury does not have to agree unanimously on is the "unlawful means."

Page 44 of the jury instructions:

Quote:

---

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.

---

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24703577-2024-05-23-jury-instructions-and-charges-final-5-23-24

---

And here I thought this was supposed to be about falsifying business financial records.

It is and always was about falsifying business records to aid, conceal, or commit another crime.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It is and always was about falsifying business records to aid, conceal, or commit another crime.

---

Whatever that crime may be.

The brief on appeal of this case limited to 50-pages but the jury instruction is 55-pages.

AggieUSMC said:

---

I'm not ready to put my tinfoil hat on this one yet.

---

I wasn't but with all the crap pulled by the Democratic Party leadership I won't completely disregard the tin foil hat material. With each passing day I become more and more cynical.

Tramp96 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It is and always was about falsifying business records to aid, conceal, or commit another crime.

---

Whatever that crime may be.

---

As you just read, "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" and the jury must unanimously agree on that.

rgag12 said:

---

If the jury is going to be hung, it's going to take much longer. If a jury is hung, don't they have to inform the court that they're hung, and then usually the judge says go back and deliberate more?

---

There are various stages of deadlock, that is particularly true in multi-count indictments such as this one. The could be hung on Trump's personal guilt over the 11 counts regarding invoices solely created and submitted by Michael Cohen, for instance.

Tomorrow will tell the tale as it is a Friday. If they do not reach a verdict by end of day tomorrow, the likelihood they are irretrievably deadlocked increases. And they may go ahead and report that to the judge tomorrow.

Merchan then has to decide whether to give them what s called an Allen charge, directing them to continue deliberations to try to resolve the conflict. As I have stated before, some states do not allow Allen charges but apparently they are allowed in NY (and Texas for that matter.)

JUSTICE MERCHAN: We received a note.

WE THE JURY HAVE A VERDICT."

— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) May 30, 2024

I don't think "whoore payoff" is in the accounts payable account dropdown box in SAP or Oracle.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

It is and always was about falsifying business records to aid, conceal, or commit another crime.

---

Whatever that crime may be.

---

As you just read, "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" and the jury must unanimously agree on that.

---

But not HOW he violated it, or let them put up a defense to IF he violated it.

Gonna be guilty. RIP to our republic

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee, none of the other legal pundits following this case, chapter and verse and having the written jury instructions believe that doesn't say they don't require unanimity on the predicate crime.

Nor is it even remotely clear that any of those other crimes were ever presented to the grand jury. Now Bragg created a Statement of Facts after the indictment but that is not properly part of the grand jury's decisions.

What makes this issue all the more disquieting is that Merchan presided over that grand jury and would kno what was and was not presented to them. If these other theories were bootstrapped into trial but never presented to grand jury?

---

The jury must agree on the predicate crime per the jury instructions. The jury has to unanimously agree that Trump had intent to aid, conceal, or commit a violation of New York Law 17-152.

Page 43 of the jury instructions:

Quote:

---

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW 17-152 PREDICATE

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.

---

New York Law 17-152 says it is a crime for "any two 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 a misdemeanor."

What the jury does not have to agree unanimously on is the "unlawful means."

Page 44 of the jury instructions:

Quote:

---

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.

---

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24703577-2024-05-23-jury-instructions-and-charges-final-5-23-24

---

We understand that clarification. Want to know what really rings false about this?

I've seen multiple examples of scenarios that are "similar" to what is presented in this case. Top of mind is the murder charge where the jury doesn't have to agree whether the perpetrator strangled the victim, then burned the body, or whether the victim was still alive and died by the fire.

Other scenarios have been mentioned, but let's use that one. Murder is murder. A single result of ending the life of another human being. The person is dead. The perpetrator caused it. Pretty simple.

Now, we have the false eqivalence of New York Law 17-152, aka New York Election Law. It is a catch-all with a wonderful vague term of "unlawful means" that ends up being wide enough to drive a Mack Truck through - especially with a jury charge that gives 3 wide areas of "possible" unlawfulness and says "pick your poison".
That's not nearly as simple, and if successful in this case, opens up a much wider jeopardy for pretty much everyone.

As a current candidate I know likes to say... Sad.

Quote:

---

The jury has reached a verdict in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial.

The verdict will be read in court shortly

---

Wait what?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he's going to excuse the jury at 4:30 p.m. ET today.

---

Cool. That means they are not close to reaching a verdict yet.

---

The judge would have no idea whether they are close or not.

---

As I was saying, the judge saying he was going to let the jury out doesn't mean he knew how close they were to reaching a verdict

Gyles Marrett said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

---

You can't remove jurors bc they are a hold out. As biased as Merchan has been I'd be astonished if they replace jurors bc they are holdouts in favor of jurors who will convict. I'd love to hear the reasoning. Our system just doesn't allow that. Why even have a jury then if you can just swap them out after the fact until you find ones that will give you the result you want?

---

From the Dershowitz statement posted above:
quote:

• If I were on the jury, that's what I'd be doing, and then the judge has the power, rarely, rarely, exercised, but he has the power, I've seen it done, to say 'Well, if this juror won't deliberate, then he's violating his oath, and I'm going to substitute one of the alternate jurors for that juror,' and then immediately, they come back with a twelve to nothing verdict of conviction."

IANAL but Dershowitz is.

FOX is reporting a verdict is in.

richardag said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

I'm not ready to put my tinfoil hat on this one yet.

---

I wasn't but with all the crap pulled by the Democratic Party leadership I won't completely disregard the tin foil hat material. With each passing day I become more and more cynical.

---

It's not tin foil hat to say that this judge is compromised. He is a donor to the Biden campaign, he is a donor to some other leftist organizations who oppose Trump. His daughter has made $9 million from the Biden campaign in 2020 and is probably in line to replicate that.

He has been hand-picked to preside over this case, the grand jury for this case, and the Trump organization case (I think there may be another one, too...maybe the Bannon case?)

It's possible he may even think he will get a federal judge appointment should Biden get re-elected, or some other fail-up consideration.

This judge is compromised. That's a fact. No tin foil needed.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

---

No need to be scared...I'm convinced a guilty verdict will increase Trump's polling numbers.

Sharpshooter said:

---

FOX is reporting a verdict is in.

---

Guilty verdict start checking the juries checking accounts.

txags92 said:

---

Gyles Marrett said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

---

You can't remove jurors bc they are a hold out. As biased as Merchan has been I'd be astonished if they replace jurors bc they are holdouts in favor of jurors who will convict. I'd love to hear the reasoning. Our system just doesn't allow that. Why even have a jury then if you can just swap them out after the fact until you find ones that will give you the result you want?

---

Any juror that is a holdout needs to absolutely mind their Ps and Qs in how they argue and act. The two attorneys know what juror misconduct is, and it wouldn't be hard for them to get a message to the judge that a juror is not following the rules and get them replaced. Also wouldn't be hard for the DOJ to keep an eye on the web surfing habits of the jurors and let the judge know if one of them starts searching for info about the trial in their spare time.

---

Well said, much clearer than my post. Thank you

To come back with a verdict that quickly in such a convoluted mess? Damn.

He's guilty. No way they let him off

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said "Please let there be no reactions, no outbursts of any kind" when they read the verdict
Trump was leaning back in his chair when the judge took the bench. He kept a straight face when the judge announced there was a verdict.
Trump just leaned over to talk to Bove. His hands are folded in front of his stomach

---

Got to be guilty if back this quickly.

This thing was orchestrated months ago.

Im guessing not guilty. I think that's what it should be too.

I've been wrong before though.

Jury pulls a Saban and asks for 30-min added to the clock.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Jury pulls a Saban and asks for 30-min added to the clock.

---

LOL.

Has to be guilty. There has to be at least a couple hardcore leftists on the jury that were never going to back down.