Interesting question. The verdict form has not been released yet, so we don't know.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
*** Official Trump Hush Money Trial Thread ***
618,075 Views |
6875 Replies |
Last: 8 days ago by Ellis Wyatt
Yes, the verdict form will show which of the 34 counts he is guilty of, all are of violating the same statute: NY Penal 175.10.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
What we will NOT see is which of the three underlying crimes the jurors decided Trump was trying to cover up.
I'm Gipper
As previously explained, the rules say he can rule on this after a verdict is reached.Quote:
I am still waiting on Merchan to rule on a directed verdict. I am holding my breath.
I'll give you a preview though:
He's going to deny it. That really isn't in doubt!
I'm Gipper
I fully expect him to not even comment on it. I certainly don't expect him to deny it.Im Gipper said:As previously explained, the rules say he can rule on this after a verdict is reached.Quote:
I am still waiting on Merchan to rule on a directed verdict. I am holding my breath.
I'll give you a preview though:
He's going to deny it. That really isn't in doubt!
Not sure if serious but I'll play along.TexAg1987 said:
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?
No, he can't. He's forced to declare a mistrial and they'll have to start all over again. But I doubt they would since a retrial wouldn't kick off until way after the election and then it's moot.
AggieUSMC said:Not sure if serious but I'll play along.TexAg1987 said:
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?
No, he can't. He's forced to declare a mistrial and they'll have to start all over again. But I doubt they would since a retrial wouldn't kick off until way after the election and then it's moot.
What would be the quickest they could turn around for a new trial?
Seems odd that there wouldn't be copies distributed to the media either by the court clerk or defense.aggiehawg said:Interesting question. The verdict form has not been released yet, so we don't know.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
Was there some kind of order sealing the verdict form?
Is it a Pelosi 'you have to pass it to know whats in it kind of deal?'
I don't know if it is sealed or just hasn't been postedto he docket yet. I do know Merchan said this morning that all counsel had seen the verdict form and initialled it.Quote:
Seems odd that there wouldn't be copies distributed to the media either by the court clerk or defense.
Was there some kind of order sealing the verdict form?
Is it a Pelosi 'you have to pass it to know whats in it kind of deal?'
But if the jury is hung, can he use the unresolved motion for directed not guilty verdict from the defense to instead direct a guilty verdict? I honestly don't know the answer and it would be sketchy as hell even if he could. But I would expect no less from this judge based on past performance.AggieUSMC said:Not sure if serious but I'll play along.TexAg1987 said:
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?
No, he can't. He's forced to declare a mistrial and they'll have to start all over again. But I doubt they would since a retrial wouldn't kick off until way after the election and then it's moot.
There's no such thing as a directed guilty verdict in a criminal case.Tramp96 said:txags92 said:Not just for holding out. They would have to have some kind of misconduct to remove them...relying on forbidden evidence to try to reach his conclusions, bringing in facts from outside of what was presented during the trial, etc. Although with this judge, holding out against a guilty verdict probably would be considered misconduct.Aggie_John said:
If there is 1 holdout on the jury, can the judge replace them with one of the alternates to get a verdict?
Yep, nothing would surprise me at this point. Boss Hogg of Hazard County had more scruples than this judge.
No, he cannot.Quote:
But if the jury is hung, can he use the unresolved motion for directed not guilty verdict from the defense to instead direct a guilty verdict?
I'm Gipper
And THIS is the big problem.Im Gipper said:Yes, the verdict form will show which of the 34 counts he is guilty of, all are of violating the same statute: NY Penal 175.10.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
What we will NOT see is which of the three underlying crimes the jurors decided Trump was trying to cover up.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of.
The defense, as a matter of formality, always motions for a directed verdict. It's always up to the judge's discretion whether or not to grant or deny such motion.txags92 said:But if the jury is hung, can he use the unresolved motion for directed not guilty verdict from the defense to instead direct a guilty verdict? I honestly don't know the answer and it would be sketchy as hell even if he could. But I would expect no less from this judge based on past performance.AggieUSMC said:Not sure if serious but I'll play along.TexAg1987 said:
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?
No, he can't. He's forced to declare a mistrial and they'll have to start all over again. But I doubt they would since a retrial wouldn't kick off until way after the election and then it's moot.
However, in this case, the chances of a directed verdict being granted are the same as that of Ana De Armas coming over to my house tonight and having sex with me.
Small correction:
And THIS is the HUGE problem.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of intending to commit or cover up.
I'm Gipper
And THIS is the HUGE problem.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of intending to commit or cover up.
I'm Gipper
I believe there's no such thing as a directed guilty verdict. A directed verdict can only be not guilty.txags92 said:Normally, he would not be able to do that. But with the motion for a directed verdict hanging out there unresolved, the legal folks would have to weigh in on whether the judge could use that to rule in favor of a directed guilty verdict on the basis of the prosecution's response brief.TexAg1987 said:
So in the event of a hung jury, does this judge step in and pronounce guilt?
Thanks for clarifying!Im Gipper said:
Small correction:
And THIS is the HUGE problem.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of intending to commit or cover up.
That's by design. The prosecution has twisted the statute into concealing "a crime, any crime". Just a nebulous sort of "if you think he's a bad guy, he probably is, so you can declare him guilty".Ag with kids said:And THIS is the big problem.Im Gipper said:Yes, the verdict form will show which of the 34 counts he is guilty of, all are of violating the same statute: NY Penal 175.10.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
What we will NOT see is which of the three underlying crimes the jurors decided Trump was trying to cover up.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of.
People who have legitimized this theory either didn't think through - or just don't care - what sort of Pandora's Box that could open.
All in the name of removing Trump from the ballot, or damaging his chances to the exent of swinging the election "in order to 'save' the country'.
It's truly mind boggling.
Ag with kids said:And THIS is the big problem.Im Gipper said:Yes, the verdict form will show which of the 34 counts he is guilty of, all are of violating the same statute: NY Penal 175.10.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
What we will NOT see is which of the three underlying crimes the jurors decided Trump was trying to cover up.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of.
Trump's only meant to be found guilty long enough for newspapers to publish it and for voters to see it. Everybody knows it won't make it through appeal.
This is what marxists always do. And it's great as long as you are a member of The Party.Quote:
People who have legitimized this theory either didn't think through - or just don't care - what sort of Pandora's Box that could open.
All in the name of removing Trump from the ballot, or damaging his chances in order to swing the election "in order to 'save' the country:.
It's truly mind boggling.
they want a perp walk?AgLiving06 said:Ag with kids said:And THIS is the big problem.Im Gipper said:Yes, the verdict form will show which of the 34 counts he is guilty of, all are of violating the same statute: NY Penal 175.10.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
What we will NOT see is which of the three underlying crimes the jurors decided Trump was trying to cover up.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of.
Trump's only meant to be found guilty long enough for newspapers to publish it and for voters to see it. Everybody knows it won't make it through appeal.
Sure they do want a perp walk and a mug shot in DOC orange coveralls.Quote:
they want a perp walk?
They ain't gonna Clark Griswold at the grand canyon this thing.aggiehawg said:Sure they do want a perp walk and a mug shot in DOC orange coveralls.Quote:
they want a perp walk?
They come all this way. They here for the show.
I hope he gives the inaugural address in the orange coveralls.
yep. what a show.Stat Monitor Repairman said:They ain't gonna Clark Griswold at the grand canyon this thing.aggiehawg said:Sure they do want a perp walk and a mug shot in DOC orange coveralls.Quote:
they want a perp walk?
They come all this way. They here for the show.
aggiehawg said:Sure they do want a perp walk and a mug shot in DOC orange coveralls.Quote:
they want a perp walk?
More than that, they want to be able to call him "Convicted Felon Donald Trump" whenever they reference him. Biden's campaign has already come out and said they will do exactly that.
Can't give this enough stars. Especially with the way that DA races have been funded and won, the formula for destroying this country is really well in place. Find a Blue DA in a Blue district and a Blue judge, trump up whatever charges you want against your political enemy, put them in front of a Blue jury and hope for the best. Do that in enough different venues across the country (because several of these exist), and the odds are good that you will win a "conviction" somewhere. Bankrupt the defendant or just point them out as a "convicted criminal" and win elections. Let them decide whether they want to exhaust all of their time and resources in appeals and let the Mainstream Media "carry your water". Because they will.RafterAg223 said:
Extremely dark and sad time for this country right now, and I would be writing this even if the shoe were on the foot of a liberal dem politician that I really don't like. I could not in good conscience declare ANYONE guilty in a case of this national magnitude when I have zero clarity on what crime has even been purportedly committed. I pray that someone on this jury has a moment of clarity on this and decides that this is up to the electorate to rule on in November. This is really really bad.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
I say this as a person who cannot stand Donald Trump but voted for him twice and will vote for him again because I find the alternative untenable.
The rule of law is what made this country the best place in the world in which to live, start a business, patent an idea, own something tangible, run for office, speak your mind freely, and even to feel protected from the ill intentions of your neighbor. It's sad to watch this case and what it says about where we are heading as a country.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
They absolutely do. This trial is the best chance for China Joe to label Trump a felon before the election. They are selling out basic principles of the Constitution and justice and stacking an extremely biased deck against Trump just to get a few months of "Trump, the convicted felon running at the top of the Republican ticket" mentions every time Trump's name is brought up.Texas velvet maestro said:they want a perp walk?AgLiving06 said:Ag with kids said:And THIS is the big problem.Im Gipper said:Yes, the verdict form will show which of the 34 counts he is guilty of, all are of violating the same statute: NY Penal 175.10.Wabs said:
So if/when they say he's guilty, will they oblige the public of the crime he's guilty of? Or just nah?
What we will NOT see is which of the three underlying crimes the jurors decided Trump was trying to cover up.
Trump won't know WHAT object crime he was found guilty of.
Trump's only meant to be found guilty long enough for newspapers to publish it and for voters to see it. Everybody knows it won't make it through appeal.
Its disgusting that these same people are the ones out there preaching about "saving Democracy".
As another person said, even if you don't like Trump, hold your nose and vote for him because the alternative are true nation-killing scum.
The 'Two minutes hate' will be very loud whenever the verdict is announced.
Make no mistake, that is precisely what this is.Quote:
A woman standing next to me, whom I didn't know, with a malevolent look on her face, strode right up to me, intruding upon my personal space, and angrily demanded that I renounce my support for Trump. She then lectured me about how dangerous he was, calling him a threat to women everywhere and a would-be-authoritarian to boot. Finally, she waited for me to respond. I just looked at her in surprise and told her, in a nice way, to get lost.
That was my first introduction to the left's "Two Minutes (of) Hate" for Donald Trump.
The concept of "Two Minutes Hate" comes from George Orwell's famous book, and the movie made about it, both titled "1984." The Guardian describes the concept:Quote:
The Two Minutes Hate is a ritual in which Party members (of the imaginary nation of Oceania) gather to watch a film of the rebel leader Emmanuel Goldstein and express compulsory rage. Regardless of their beliefs, the audience finds this an easy task. "The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate," Orwell writes, "was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within 30 seconds any pretense was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against one's will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp."
!
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2024
for those curious on the exact language in the instructions, its:
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.
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 oft he Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
This trial/verdict is a foregone conclusion....so this has zero chance of happening, but I would pay A LOT of money to see the judge's face after hearing the jurors find Trump innocent of all charges.
edit - I firmly believe this judge is so full of TDS that he would have a physical and/or audible outburst. Hell, he would probably immediately send all those jurors to jail for contempt of court.
edit - I firmly believe this judge is so full of TDS that he would have a physical and/or audible outburst. Hell, he would probably immediately send all those jurors to jail for contempt of court.
So they dropped that state election charge that was in the indictment IIRC?BMX Bandit said:
for those curious on the exact language in the instructions, its: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.
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 oft he Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
What this trial (as well as the recent civil trial with the ridiculous 1/3 of a billion dollar verdict) has shown to me, more than anything, is that judges have WAY too much unchecked power. I was really naive in thinking that judges conducted their courtrooms within well-established procedural rules and, most importantly, within the rule of law.
The judges are out of control and there is nothing stopping them. If this country is ever going to get back to being a country that is governed by the rule of law, there is some serious judicial reform that needs to take place. One judge should not wield this much power.
I'm not sure which is more egregious...this trial or the civil trial where the judge denied him a trial by jury and then levied the most ridiculous fine ever for a "crime" that had NO victims of any kind. Both judges should be strung up (figuratively), disbarred, and possibly serve some white collar prison time.
The judges are out of control and there is nothing stopping them. If this country is ever going to get back to being a country that is governed by the rule of law, there is some serious judicial reform that needs to take place. One judge should not wield this much power.
I'm not sure which is more egregious...this trial or the civil trial where the judge denied him a trial by jury and then levied the most ridiculous fine ever for a "crime" that had NO victims of any kind. Both judges should be strung up (figuratively), disbarred, and possibly serve some white collar prison time.
What I can't figure out yet is this- does the judge fail uphill and get a promotion? Or, does he know he'll be punished, but doesn't care because he'll surely be sitting on millions from Soros, etc? I guess only time will tell.
...take it easy on me, I'm a normal horn
Were the jurors allowed to take notes?
Didn't this occur after the election?
I'm confused as to the time line.
I understand the intent of the language you posted and the judges intent, but, I find it hard to swallow that it's sufficient to add jurors guilty assumptions on three items but none of the items have majority and or unanimous agreement to a law being broken.
That seems very unfair to the defendent.
I'm confused as to the time line.
I understand the intent of the language you posted and the judges intent, but, I find it hard to swallow that it's sufficient to add jurors guilty assumptions on three items but none of the items have majority and or unanimous agreement to a law being broken.
That seems very unfair to the defendent.
Featured Stories
See All
Predictability leads to disappointment in A&M's 17-7 loss to Texas
by Olin Buchanan
27:34
2h ago
7.1k
21:58
1h ago
5.1k
Photo Gallery: No. 3 Texas 17, No. 20 Texas A&M 7
by Zoe Kelton
No. 20 Aggies finish Players Era with a 81-77 victory over Rutgers
by Luke Evangelist