aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

jurors must first decide that he falsified financial documents and did so with the express purpose of committing another crime.

---

---

an hour to obfuscate this into a guilty verdict

lol

that is a lot to keep straight in my head

Why in the world wouldn't they want the jury to have a copy of the jury instructions/questions? I mean, in a sane court. I've never even heard of that.

So why could the jury instructions take an hour or more? Is reasonable doubt that difficult? Maybe trying to explain how they can find someone guilty of an unspecified crime. Maybe judges are above the law.

Quote:

---

As Judge Juan Merchan begins reading the jury instructions, he tells the jurors they are responsible for judging the case on the facts.

Quote:

---

"It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here," Merchan says. "It is yours. You are the judges of the facts and you are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty."

---

"In fact, nothing I have said in the course of this trial was meant to suggest I have an opinion about this case," Merchan said.
"If you have formed an impression I do have an opinion, you must put it out of your mind at this time."

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan reminds jurors they must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes.

Quote:

---

"As a juror, you are asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community. I know you would not want to make that decision based on such stereotypes or attitudes," he tells them.

---

"You must set aide any personal opinions you have in favor or against the defendant."

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells jurors they "may not speculate about matters related to sentence or punishment." He tells the jury that is up to the judge.

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

So why could the jury instructions take an hour or more? Is reasonable doubt that difficult? Maybe trying to explain how they can find someone guilty of an unspecified crime. Maybe judges are above the law.

---

its 34 counts. he reads the count and law for each one, along with pages and pages of instructions.

Not unusual in my experience.

pacecar02 said:

---

lol

that is a lot to keep straight in my head

---

And if the jurors have different recollections and argue about what the instructions were they have to have Merchan read them again? That's harsh. That also elevates the two lawyers' profiles in the delberation room, in my view.

So did he commit the same crime 34 times, allegedly? Or 34 different crimes?

just curious

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

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Not unusual in my experience.

---

Really? With a 34 count indictment? They will only have the verdict form?

Quote:

---

"The more broad that jury instruction is, which is the way that the judge is going, the easier it is for them to make that connection evidentiary," Wu told CNN, referring to the connection between falsifying the business records and a second underlying crime

---

This assumes the jury is entering deliberations wanting to convict and will look for any excuse to do so. That may be the case and if so, it doesn't really matter how "broad" the instructions are. It's also effed up and back-asswards on how the justice system should work.

Yep. Don't agree with it - but have seen it in various state courts.

Quote:

---

The jury's eyes are locked on Judge Juan Merchan as he is facing them and reading the instruction.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan reminds the jurors that he gave them limiting instructions at several points, which he says was provided for them to hear on a limited purpose.

He's now walking through the limiting instructions he gave, such as American Media Inc.'s non-prosecution agreement being limited to assess David Pecker's credibility and not evidence of the defendant's guilt or innocence.

---

Quote:

---

"We now turn to the fundamental principles of our law that apply to all criminal trials," Judge Juan Merchan says.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury that they can't hold it against Trump for not testifying.
"The defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty. In fact, the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything," he says.
"If people satisfy their burden of proof you must find the defendant guilty," Merchan adds.

---

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?

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury the reading of the instructions will take about an hour.

He says the jurors will not receive copies of the jury instructions, but they may request that Merchan read them back to them either in whole or in part.

---

Why? Isn't is standard practice for each member of the jury to have a written copy of the instructions in front of them as they deliberate?

Quote:

---

Why? Isn't is standard practice for each member of the jury to have a written copy of the instructions in front of them as they deliberate?

---

From a quick googling, it appears that is not standard in New York.

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Yep. Don't agree with it - but have seen it in various state courts.

---

Been out of the biz for a very long time but these last few years of watching trials the system in which I practiced doesn't seem to exist anymore.

Judge skews the instructions in an amorphous case towards the prosecution, won't allow the jury to read them while deliberating so as to deliberately further confuse them?

aggiehawg said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Not unusual in my experience.

---

Really? With a 34 count indictment? They will only have the verdict form?

---

Won't even need a pen as the judge has already graciously filled it out. All the jury has to do is go back and enjoy brunch provided by the DA and bring the verdict form back with them when they return to the court room after eating and picking up their Thank you gifts.

Reality Check said:

---

Watching this trial in NYC and how one corrupt judge can team with a corrupt DA to completely destroy an individual's Civil Rights is enough to persuade me to believe that the American Experiment has failed.

Better to have the population know we are ruled by tyrants and act accordingly than to pretend we're a Constitutional Republic and see people victimized by this government.

---

Unfortunately, this is where I am. I used to always say, "no matter how bad it gets, I will never support lawfare against my enemies." But this is way beyond acceptable. They aren't going to stop. The only way to stop a tyrant is to follow an even bigger one. Someone needs to stomp on the head of this snake now before it does any more damage and I hope Trump does so by whatever means necessary. Liberals throw around hyperbolic nonsense all the time like "democracy is on the ballot!" But in this case, in 2024, it really is. Just not in the way they think.

With the instructions so skewed against Trump, his attorneys may not want the jury to have a copy!

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is now defining reasonable doubt.
"There are very few things that we know with absolute certainty," he says.
"It is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty," Merchan adds.
"The people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime, including the defendant is the person who committed that crime. The burden of proof never shifts from the people to the defendant," the judge tells the jury.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is continuing to instruct the jurors. "Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest on speculation," he says.
Merchan tells the jurors their decision should be guided "solely on a full and fair evaluation of the evidence."
"If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged crime, you must find the defendant not guilty," he says, noting the converse is also true.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jurors that they are the "judges of the facts" and they alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of witness testimony.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jurors that if they "find any witness has intentionally testified falsely to any fact," they can disregard that witness's testimony either entirely or just the portions they found to be false.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is continuing to instruct the jurors. "Whatever your verdict may be, it must not rest on speculation," he says.

---

"Now, here are instructions on how you can speculate on what underlying crime he may have committed."

The entire prosecution case is speculation.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan continues to give the jury instructions and is now speaking to witness credibility.
He tells the jury they can consider whether a witness hopes or expects to receive a benefit related to the trial or if they have an interest in the outcome of the case.
"You are not required to reject the testimony of an interested witness or to accept the testimony of a witness who has no interest in the outcome of a case," Merchan says.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury that if they find a crime was committed, they must find that Donald Trump committed the crime.
"You cannot convict the defendant of that crime unless you're also convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he also committed that crime," the judge says.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says the jury cannot convict Trump on the testimony of Michael Cohen alone because he is an accomplice, but they can use it if they corroborate it with other evidence.

"Under our law Michael Cohen is an accomplice," Merchan says.

---

He's going to be found guilty on all counts. Russia courts work the same way.

NDA's are not illegal

FriscoKid said:

---

He's going to be found guilty on all counts. Russia courts work the same way.

---

You may be right but I'm not quite that pessimistic. All it takes is one fair-minded juror to hold out.

If they come to a quick verdict, I'm worried. If this takes several days, I think a hung jury or an acquittal is more likely.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury, "I will now instruct you on the law applicable to the charged offense. That offense is falsifying business records in the first degree, 34 counts."

---

Quote:

---

As Judge Juan Merchan goes through the jury instructions, some jurors appear to be looking down taking notes.

---

Quote:

---

In order to find the defendant guilty, Judge Juan Merchan says the jury must be unanimous.

Merchan added that jurors do not need to be unanimous on "whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or acted in concert with another, or both."

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is continuing to outline the specific charges the jury will consider against Donald Trump.

Quote:

---

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when with intent to defraud, which includes the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, he makes or causes a false entry in the records of a business enterprise," Merchan says.

---

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

He's going to be found guilty on all counts. Russia courts work the same way.

---

You may be right but I'm not quite that pessimistic. All it takes is one fair-minded juror to hold out.

If they come to a quick verdict, I'm worried. If this takes several days, I think a hung jury or an acquittal is more likely.

---

With some of the demographics on that jury, I think an acquittal is impossible.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is explaining that intent to defraud means conscious objective or purpose.
He says a question naturally arises with how to determine intent.

Quote:

---

"To make that determination in this case, you must decide whether the required intent can be inferred beyond a reasonable doubt from the proven facts," he says.

---

Merchan is defining several terms relevant to the falsifying business records charge. Intent to defraud "is when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so." Intent does not require premeditation, he says.
A general intent to defraud any person or entity is suffice and it can extend beyond economic concerns.

---