Unfortunately, if there are any rational jurists, there is a week for DNC operatives to meet with them to explain why it is in their and their families best interest to vote guilty.

The time the judge has given will be used wisely by evil.

aggiehawg said:

---

Going back to the first dozen or so pages of this thread the potential jurors were asked where they got their news. Most of them said CNN, or Yahoo, Google alerts, a smattering of Fox responses but CNN by far was the most common response along with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal for newspapers.

---

Hawk: In your experience, do you believe potential jurors are completely honest during voir dire? I have set on 6-8 jury's (the must like me). On one, during deliberations, one of the members tried to talk people out of the sentencing because he "knew the family". I have seen others that just want to be selected. Just asking what you think.

Quote:

---

During the day, when the trial is actually going on, they seem to be pretty fair. They have questioned a lot of the evidence, they said the Cohen testimony went very bad for the prosecution, etc... but then if you watch the nightly report, it is completely different. They basically act like everything has gone perfect for the prosecution and the defense is tripping all over themselves.

---

What time of day do you think the jury has been watching the news?

I have seen nothing, so far, to convince me Trump will not be railroaded again. At this point, I think enough of the country can either see through it, or are so sick of the current state of things, Trump will get elected.

What do they really think will happen if any of this leads to disqualifying him for running for office? I don't think the Supreme court would ever allow that, but even if it goes that far the backlash would be insane.

Quote:

---

Hawk: In your experience, do you believe potential jurors are completely honest during voir dire? I have set on 6-8 jury's (the must like me). On one, during deliberations, one of the members tried to talk people out of the sentencing because he "knew the family". I have seen others that just want to be selected. Just asking what you think.

---

I was never counsel on a highly publicized case such as this one. So my experiences were much more straightforward with regular jury panels that included broad swaths across socio economic and occupational metrics.

That is not the case with people who live and work in Manhattan, not the Bronx, not Queens, not Staten Island, not Brooklyn. And as this jury has shown, you can't swing a dead cat in a big group of Manhattanites and not hit a lawyer or banker or government employee of some sort such as a teacher.

But removing the political ramifications from the calculus the jury will have to employ and any inherent bias for or against Trump, the prosecution has been a mess. And it is sounding as if the jury instructions will be a mess as well. This jury will not be sure exactly what they are supposed to decide. With little to clear cut guidance coming from the court, that is when a jury's personal biases or general observations of demeanor play a larger role than they would ordinarily would have.

I have seen reports that the jurors stopped taking as copious of notes midway through Cohen's testimony. The defense getting him to admit he embezzled sixty thou from the Revocable Trust and Trump himself likely did not sit well with them. Stormy's lawyer Davidson was pretty smarmy with doing nothing but shakedowns for and against celebrities, shopping stories around. And it's not as if Stormy was a very savory character either.

So on which rationale will the jurors hang their hat in reaching a decision on guilt or innocence? They will be out and alone in the woods for that one.

Dumb question:
If members of the jury cannot decipher what or even if any laws were violated...how can they rule "guilty"???

I would think the 2 empaneled lawyers would make that point to the rest.

I know...I'm imagining 12 fair and balanced members. Is that even possible anymore??

Quote:

---

What do they really think will happen if any of this leads to disqualifying him for running for office? I don't think the Supreme court would ever allow that, but even if it goes that far the backlash would be insane.

---

While never put anything past the Dems, they are not claiming a conviction would legally disqualify him from office.

Quote:

---

they are not claiming a conviction would legally disqualify him from office.

---

Let's circle back to this in about 7-days.

aggiepanic95 said:

---

Unfortunately, if there are any rational jurists, there is a week for DNC operatives to meet with them to explain why it is in their and their families best interest to vote guilty.

The time the judge has given will be used wisely by evil.

---

I think you mis-spelled CIA or FBI.

Sorry for the double post

txags92 said:

---

Verne Lundquist said:

---

The CNN guy who has been doing most of the analysis said tonight that what he saw today with the instructions debate was that the prosecution doesn't care about losing the appeal they just want the conviction when they didn't want to explain what the "other crime" was

---

I just can't understand how the law they are using is in any way constitutional? If you are using the supposed fact that the actions taken were done so in attempting to conceal a crime, how in the world can it meet due process for you to not have to prove out the claim that there actually was a crime they were trying to conceal?

---

It is an element of this offense that the jury find there was intent to conceal a crime. The state will have to prove that, and there will be jury instructions on it. The model jury instructions have been posted on here before. The State will, one would assume, explain their theory of what crime(s) there was intent to cover up in closing.

As to the *particular* crime, it sounds like there will be jury instructions on the 3 object crimes the State was allowed to move forward on as theories of the case.

They specifically argued yesterday about defining all 3 of those crimes. For example:

We are now talking about the proposed jury instruction on New York Election Law 17-152.

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) May 21, 2024

Next dispute: more FECA instructions, how to define contribution and other terms: Bove says defense wants to make clear to the jury that there's a zone of 1A protected activity.

Colangelo argues that this is not an accurate statement of the law, and in any event, irrelevant.

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) May 21, 2024

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

they are not claiming a conviction would legally disqualify him from office.

---

Let's circle back to this in about 7-days.

---

You've been waiting for him to be thrown in jail like you claimed was going to happen any moment for over a year now, so what's a few more days wait?

He very well may get convicted, but it will be overturned in the Appellate courts for one of many reasons.

Sadly, the Dems will have their big talking point to repeat in lockstep until the election - "How in the world can you vote a convicted felon into office ?"

whatthehey78 said:

---

Dumb question:
If members of the jury cannot decipher what or even if any laws were violated...how can they rule "guilty"???

I would think the 2 empaneled lawyers would make that point to the rest.

I know...I'm imagining 12 fair and balanced members. Is that even possible anymore??

---

As to the bolded part, that is the biggest issue. What will be on the verdict form? By that I mean which specific questions will the jury be asked to answer?

The fact that this entire trial is a political ploy, I'm fairly confident the Dems feel that anything short of acquittal is a victory, because even a hung jury mistrial will be heavily in favor of guilty (11-1, 10-2) and the talking points will be made.

Merchan has already added a week to the trial, and I imagine he will keep them in deliberations until he gets the verdict he wants or the imbalance towards guilty he needs to get the political victory.

They've already deployed the astroturfing of protesters and if some miracle happens and the jury deliberates quickly and acquits they streets will be filled with paid protest

Quote:

---

What will be on the verdict form? By that I mean which specific questions will the jury be asked to answer?

---

The question is going to be guilty or not guilty.

Its the instructions that are key here on what it takes to find a guilty verdict.

Here are the model instructions and forms in New York:

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/6-Verdict%20Sheets/Verdict%20Sheets.shtml

Quote:

---

This trial is nothing more than the criminal version of the E Jean Carroll & Trump business fraud civil trials

---

State of New York and a single county in New York landing punch after punch and about to go 3 for 3 on Trump's ass.

Next we'll hear discussion of whether Trump's punishment should be enhanced because of prior bad acts, even if on the civil side.

Quote:

---

They've already deployed the astroturfing of protesters and if some miracle happens and the jury deliberates quickly and acquits they streets will be filled with paid protest

---

Some poor delivery driver at a Home Depot in Newark mad because he's asked to deliver yet another pallet of bricks to Manhattan.

Can you imagine the rioting if Trump is somehow acquitted here? They may burn the city to the ground!

I agree about just using the model instructions. Those are being edited heavily. Its where both sides start.

nortex97 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Can you imagine the rioting if Trump is somehow acquitted here? They may burn the city to the ground!

---

These terms are acceptable.

---

I LOL'd. Well done!

Im Gipper said:

---

I agree about just using the model instructions. Those are being edited heavily. Its where both sides start.

---

Except the judge was mostly not allowing defense changes.

You know I follow several law tubers who cover trials. On this Trump case, Robert Gouveia and Good Lawgic. The latter is a litigator in NYC and been doing dramatic readings of parts of the transcript using his fellow law tubers playing the roles. Joe also has filed suit as a member of the press against Trump's gag order.

He invited Ed Morrissey from Hot Air to participate in one on Cohen's cross examination. Morrissey's take along with the stream are HERE

Provides more context of what the jury was hearing, if you have the time.

aggiehawg said:

---

there was an exchange between Bove and Steinglass yesterday on the underlying crime. Steinglass states the underlying crime is conspiracy. There are no conspiracy counts in the indictment. Bove points out that conspiracy needs a criminal object for even conspiracy to be a crime itself.

Conspiracy to do what? Conspiracy to aid or conceal what? If the "what" isn't a crime in itself then existence of a conspiracy is not a crime either.

---

New York Law 17-152, which is one of the three documented and long known object crimes the Court allowed the state to use at trial, is literally entitled "CONSPIRACY to promote or prevent election."

That's the "conspiracy" Steinglass is talking about.

Quote:

---

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor.

---

Edited to add: Bove's comment about the "criminal object" of the conspiracy came during a debate about what "unlawful means" means. The State says the "unlawful means" can be civilly or criminally unlawful. Bove wants the Court to say the "unlawful means" have to be criminal.

So their plan is to amend the indictment to match the jury's findings of fact. Is that what we hearing?

Quote:

---

New York Law 17-152, which is one of the three documented and long known object crimes the Court allowed the state to use at trial, is literally entitled "CONSPIRACY to promote or prevent election."

That's the "conspiracy" Steinglass is talking about.

Quote:

---

17-152. Conspiracy to promote or prevent election. 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 a misdemeanor.

---

---

Do you think this trial has been transparent and fair? Do you think it is seeking justice?

Yes he's already answered that. He thinks it's just and fair.

Im Gipper said:

---

Can you imagine the rioting if Trump is somehow acquitted here? They may burn the city to the ground!

---

Let it burn.....

It will not matter with this judge but the prosecutor is going to have to give a ton of facts not in evidence in their closing.

Defense better be on their A-game because they need to give the best closing argument of all time.

New York Law 17-152, which is one of the three documented and long known object crimes the Court allowed the state to use at trial, is literally entitled "CONSPIRACY to promote or prevent election."

................Sounds exactly like what they are doing.

agAngeldad said:

---

New York Law 17-152, which is one of the three documented and long known object crimes the Court allowed the state to use at trial, is literally entitled "CONSPIRACY to promote or prevent election."

................Sounds exactly like what they are doing.

---

How can there be a conspiracy to promote or prevent election when the criminal defendant is the one seeking to be elected?