Mr Mojo Risin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Do what now?

---

That's absolutely false. One might even say, fake news.

---

If they don't unanimously find him guilty or unanimously find him not guilty, it will be a mistrial for a hung jury and not an acquittal. Trump could be tried again as double jeopardy doesn't attach to a hung jury. Unanimity works both ways.

Don't know about the likelihood but it's true it's only an acquittal if all 12 vote to acquit

He won't be acquitted and I doubt he'll be tried again. It'll be over.

New: DA & Trump's proposed jury charges landed on the paper docket. @Law360 scanned them in for you.

(No final jury charge on paper until the jury hears it)https://t.co/ppYaCN5z8A pic.twitter.com/B4fyzeB7zX

— Frank G. Runyeon (@frankrunyeon) May 25, 2024

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Mr Mojo Risin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Do what now?

---

That's absolutely false. One might even say, fake news.

---

If they don't unanimously find him guilty or unanimously find him not guilty, it will be a mistrial for a hung jury and not an acquittal. Trump could be tried again as double jeopardy doesn't attach to a hung jury. Unanimity works both ways.

Don't know about the likelihood but it's true it's only an acquittal if all 12 vote to acquit

---

Good call. I misread.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

They mentioned that case in the transcript. So I read it.

It desls with why the indictment or instructions don't need to say that specific other crime intended. It would let a defendant say "I didn't intend to do crime X, I intended crime Y" and get off.

Mackey does not say that the state can allege multiple other crimes and the jury can all pick a separate one to decide there is no reasonable doubt on. There's no NY case in that either way I'm assuming because neither side cited it.

---

I would agree there (although there's a strong implication***). Haven't read all the cases Mackey builds off of, etc. But I think Mackey is still quite on point to the many comments here complaining that the State has not been claiming a specific crime or whatever. And there might be a statutory construction question but certainly not a Constitutional question

There's been no obligation on the state to do so. Their only "obligation" is to tie it together in closing.


*** There's a federal case about the same statute that says as much, though. (DeVonish)

"In order to secure a conviction for burglary, the People need only allege a knowing and unlawful entry coupled with an intent to commit a crime therein. There is no requirement that the People allege or establish what particular crime was intended, or that the intended crime actually be committed."

---

So about that bringing it together on closing, if they failed to mention it or present evidence about it during the trial, are they allowed to bring it up in their close? I know this judge will let them do whatever they want, but pretending for a second that we are no in a kangaroo court, isn't the close too late to present the theory on what crime they think he was covering up if they never brought it up during the trial?

So the jury charge won't be released to the public until after the case is put in the hands of the jury?

Quote:

---

So about that bringing it together on closing, if they failed to mention it or present evidence about it during the trial, are they allowed to bring it up in their close?

---

They are not allowed to.

Quote:

---

isn't the close too late to present the theory on what crime they think he was covering up if they never brought it up during the trial?

---

Correct.


They are going to stick to the election laws and tax issue.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

So about that bringing it together on closing, if they failed to mention it or present evidence about it during the trial, are they allowed to bring it up in their close?

---

They are not allowed to.

Quote:

---

isn't the close too late to present the theory on what crime they think he was covering up if they never brought it up during the trial?

---

Correct.


They are going to stick to the election laws and tax issue.

---

I can at least wrap my head around the election law, but I'm still confused on the tax issue and how it's illegal. Is there a dumbed down explanation on what the tax issue is?

the allegation is cohen was paid 130k to reimburse him for what he paid stormy. That was disguised as legal fees, so cohen would owe taxes on it. A reimbursement would not be income.

So that Cohen would be made whole, he was to be paid $420k (180k of which was the "make whole" portion). The alleged crime this was to cover up was falsely claiming the $130k was not a reimbursement.

Ironically, this actually resulted in NY getting more in tax revenue than it would have otherwise received.

Thank you for the explanation. I can understand the other direction being illegal: listing salary as reimbursement to avoid taxes. However, why is it illegal to classify reimbursement as salary in which taxes get paid? If you overpay your taxes, the Feds will just treat that as a donation to the government.

Statute does not specifically say less taxes is required;

18001(a)(3) knowingly supplies or submits materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return, audit, investigation, or proceeding or fails to supply information within the time required by or under the provisions of this chapter or any regulation promulgated under this chapter;


I believe Trump lawyers argued it was not "materially false"

BMX Bandit said:

---

the allegation is cohen was paid 130k to reimburse him for what he paid stormy. That was disguised as legal fees, so cohen would owe taxes on it. A reimbursement would not be income.

So that Cohen would be made whole, he was to be paid $420k (180k of which was the "make whole" portion). The alleged crime this was to cover up was falsely claiming the $130k was not a reimbursement.

Ironically, this actually resulted in NY getting more in tax revenue than it would have otherwise received.

---

I think 50k of that was for IT expenses of which Cohen stole 30k of

Also, has anyone ever seen a Tax case where a person was pursued having over paid a tax bill?

SwigAg11 said:

---

Thank you for the explanation. I can understand the other direction being illegal: listing salary as reimbursement to avoid taxes. However, why is it illegal to classify reimbursement as salary in which taxes get paid? If you overpay your taxes, the Feds will just treat that as a donation to the government.

---

The most common "bad" reasons folks over report income to get more tax credits or they pair it with false withholding information and they hope to get a big refund on income and taxes they never made or paid.

I'm not saying that's relevant here, but that's often the idea. Or you secure loans with overinflated income or whatever. Lots of reasons to do it.

It's counterintuitive. And as BMX points out, there's a question of materiality here

I think there's a reason they seem most focused on campaign finance and expenditure issues and not the tax issue.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Statute does not specifically say less taxes is required;

18001(a)(3) knowingly supplies or submits materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return, audit, investigation, or proceeding or fails to supply information within the time required by or under the provisions of this chapter or any regulation promulgated under this chapter;


I believe Trump lawyers argued it was not "materially false"

---

And...Trump is guilty of doing what in this scenario???

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Mr Mojo Risin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Do what now?

---

That's absolutely false. One might even say, fake news.

---

If they don't unanimously find him guilty or unanimously find him not guilty, it will be a mistrial for a hung jury and not an acquittal. Trump could be tried again as double jeopardy doesn't attach to a hung jury. Unanimity works both ways.

Don't know about the likelihood but it's true it's only an acquittal if all 12 vote to acquit

---

I do literally zero criminal work and the last experience with criminal law I have was memorizing stuff for the Texas bar exam P/E section like 15 years ago. Question is:

If the jury comes back hung, how long of a cycle would we be talking about to get this mess back to re-trial? Bonus follow up: if the jury is hung a second time, would they try a third time? I've seen it happen (article on Law 360 a year or two ago where a federal district judge in Colorado put the AUSA on the case through the wringer when they asked for a third trial). And I could see the Manhattan DA asking for a third shot. But at what point does the system just say, "no" - even for a figure like Trump?

There's been some discussion on this thread over that. I think the general consensus is they probably wouldn't retry. Stormy and Cohen would have to keep their stories straight and consistent a second time, and pundits on even CNN and MSNBC have been questioning WTF is going on with this case.

Edit: Would the case be retried under Merchan? Could a different judge just toss the case?

Okay so let me get this straight going back over the inner press tweets and Hawgs notes. Bragg vaguely referenced four crimes and there have been months of confusion was to what he was specifically alleging as his criminal theories. Even all the so called expert legal analysts on CNN and MSNBC have continued to question the specific allegations against Trump as we head into closing arguments.

So as I can best determine it stands that there are three crimes that have been referenced by prosecutors as the potential other crimes. There's state and federal election violations and taxation violations.

Now this clown DA Bragg's legal theory for non-objective indictments was greatly enhanced by Merchan, who said he will ALLOW the jury to reach different rulings on what crime is actually evident in Bragg's claim that Trump was covering up? How the f*** does that work? This hack Merchan has even ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means for example there could be multiple groups of multiple jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation which Bragg cannot even enforce, and a another believing there was a tax violation, WTF???. Nonetheless, Merchan said he will treat that as a unanimous verdict?????

In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different scenarios, but still send Trump to prison on their totally subjective yet different interpretations???? That's BS and the SCOTUS has determined the opposite so there is precedent

Now before you jump me saying that's in a federal trial so effing what, it still applies. Unanimous agreement is unanimous agreement, there is zero room for ambiguity. Am I reading this wrong?

Foreverconservative said:

---

Okay so let me get this straight going back over the inner press tweets and Hawgs notes. Bragg vaguely referenced four crimes and there have been months of confusion was to what he was specifically alleging as his criminal theories. Even all the so called expert legal analysts on CNN and MSNBC have continued to question the specific allegations against Trump as we head into closing arguments.

So as I can best determine it stands that there are three crimes that have been referenced by prosecutors as the potential other crimes. There's state and federal election violations and taxation violations.

Now this clown DA Bragg's legal theory for non-objective indictments was greatly enhanced by Merchan, who said he will ALLOW the jury to reach different rulings on what crime is actually evident in Bragg's claim that Trump was covering up? How the f*** does that work? This hack Merchan has even ruled that the jurors can disagree on what actually occurred in terms of the second crime. This means for example there could be multiple groups of multiple jurors, with one believing that there was a conspiracy to conceal a state election violation, another believing there was a federal election violation which Bragg cannot even enforce, and a another believing there was a tax violation, WTF???. Nonetheless, Merchan said he will treat that as a unanimous verdict?????

In other words, they could look at the indictment and see vastly different scenarios, but still send Trump to prison on their totally subjective yet different interpretations???? That's BS and the SCOTUS has determined the opposite so there is precedent

Now before you jump me saying that's in a federal trial so effing what, it still applies. Unanimous agreement is unanimous agreement, there is zero room for ambiguity. Am I reading this wrong?

---

Even CNN commentators were saying how obvious it was that the prosecution/judge don't care about the verdict surviving appeal. I don't know if that was in reference to Richardson, though.

Quote:

---

Even CNN commentators were saying how obvious it was that the prosecution/judge don't care about the verdict surviving appeal. I don't know if that was in reference to Richardson, though.

---

...and this is all you really need to know about what is going on. Get my headline for talking points and bury the retraction later.

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced it in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really particularly relevant to this case Trump case

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really relevant to this case Trump case

---

Why does the legal community disagree with you?

jt2hunt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really relevant to this case Trump case

---

Why does the legal community disagree with you?

---

Can you show me where the "legal community" is saying the Constitution requires the jury agree on the object crime?

Not even Trump has argued that

Ag with kids said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Statute does not specifically say less taxes is required;

18001(a)(3) knowingly supplies or submits materially false or fraudulent information in connection with any return, audit, investigation, or proceeding or fails to supply information within the time required by or under the provisions of this chapter or any regulation promulgated under this chapter;


I believe Trump lawyers argued it was not "materially false"

---

And...Trump is guilty of doing what in this scenario???

---

I'm pretty sure Trump wasn't Cohen's CPA. Seems Cohen's characterization of the payments on his tax return is on him.

The reimbursement issue is pretty sticky. If I hire a guy to come do work at my house and he sends me a bill for labor and materials, is the materials portion of the bill a reimbursement instead of revenues for tax purposes? Answer - No.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really relevant to this case Trump case

---

Why does the legal community disagree with you?

---

Can you show me where the "legal community" is saying the Constitution requires the jury agree on the object crime?

Not even Trump has argued that

---

I'm not certain about the legal community, but the layperson on here is wondering how it is permissible that a unanimous verdict is not strictly required (at least on the object crimes).

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really relevant to this case Trump case

---

Why does the legal community disagree with you?

---

Can you show me where the "legal community" is saying the Constitution requires the jury agree on the object crime?

Not even Trump has argued that

---

No, I do not need to do that. You're being obtuse. What I said was the legal community as a consensus does not agree with you.

SwigAg11 said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really relevant to this case Trump case

---

Why does the legal community disagree with you?

---

Can you show me where the "legal community" is saying the Constitution requires the jury agree on the object crime?

Not even Trump has argued that

---

I'm not certain about the legal community, but the layperson on here is wondering how it is permissible that a unanimous verdict is not strictly required (at least on the object crimes).

---

Juries are required to unanimously agree the elements of the charged crime are met. They are almost always able to disagree on how the elements were met. (See below.)

The question in the Trump case is whether "another" should be read to require specific intent to commit a specific crime or general intent to generally commit a crime. There are arguments for both sides. The judge has not really shown his hand on this issue, as far as I've seen.


Schad v Arizona:

"We have never suggested that, in returning general verdicts in such cases, the jurors should be required to agree upon a single means of commission, any more than the indictments were required to specify one alone. In these cases, as in litigation generally, "different jurors may be persuaded by different pieces of evidence, even when they agree upon the bottom line.""

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced it in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really particularly relevant to this case Trump case

---

can you square this proposition with the holding from the case: "These considerations, taken together, lead us to conclude that the statute requires jury unanimity in respect to each individual "violation.""

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced it in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really particularly relevant to this case Trump case

---

can you square this proposition with the holding from the case: "These considerations, taken together, lead us to conclude that the statute requires jury unanimity in respect to each individual "violation.""

---

Yes.

"The Statute." Not "the Constitution."

TXAggie2011 said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced it in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really particularly relevant to this case Trump case

---

can you square this proposition with the holding from the case: "These considerations, taken together, lead us to conclude that the statute requires jury unanimity in respect to each individual "violation.""

---

Yes.

"The Statute." Not "the Constitution."

---

a statute requiring unanimity does not equal the constitution not requiring it...

where in Richardson does it stand for that proposition broadly?

edit: and since I'm inclined to think you'll simply quote the snippet about the Johnson case - that case discusses unanimity of jurors as a whole - nothing about elements vs means/underlying crimes

this is a pretty in the weeds but not overly biased article about the issue for anyone interested by the way:

what-must-prosecutors-prove-in-trump-s-ny-trial

"That said, this reasoning is not necessarily a slam dunk. In his omnibus motion to dismiss, Trump identified several distinctions between the burglary statutes and 175.10suggesting, for example, that "intent to commit a crime" under the burglary statutes is more general in meaning than "intent to commit another crime" under 175.10. And Justice Merchan did not seem completely convinced by Bragg's analogizing in his ruling on the motion to dismiss.

With all that in mind, it wouldn't be surprising to see Merchan issue instructions to the jury requiring unanimity, just to be safe."

prediction: Merchan will 100% definitely not require unanimity

TXAggie2011 said:

---

fredfredunderscorefred said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

The Richardson case is interpreting a particular federal statute.

I referenced it in this thread because the case more broadly stands for the idea there is no Constitutional requirement a jury unanimously agree on the object crime because there have been repeated, incorrect claims there is

Richardson otherwise is not really particularly relevant to this case Trump case

---

can you square this proposition with the holding from the case: "These considerations, taken together, lead us to conclude that the statute requires jury unanimity in respect to each individual "violation.""

---

Yes.

"The Statute." Not "the Constitution."

---

Serious questions m:


Are you an attorney?

If so, practicing what type of Law?

Do you litigate in front of judges/juries for a living?

That's the whole question. Like I said above, what is the element of the crime? Is it specific intent to commit a specific crime or is general intent to commit a crime.

If the element is specific intent to commit a specific object crime, then yes of course the jury would need to be unanimous as to the specific. If the element is general intent to generally commit a crime, then the jury would not have to agree.

There is no Constitutional underpinning which says the latter, general intent is barred, carte blanche, as a matter of Constitutional law.

If that were the case, Richardson would not "need to look at the statute" as it did.

Nor would it need say there is only a Constitutional "limit" in the event it is too unfair to allow jury disagreement. Which again, I don't believe I've ever seen Trump argue. Have you?