AtticusMatlock said:

---

Were the jurors allowed to take notes?

---

Yes.

Aggie95 said:

---

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.

---

He'd probably read the verdict and instruct them to "try again".

its still there:

Quote:

---

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.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that 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 conspiracy to promote or prevent an election .

Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed.

Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy

---

So it turns out, there is only one predicate crime. the state election law.

it requires "unlawful means" which can be the violation of tax law or federal election law, or something else unlawful.

Quote:

---

So it turns out, there is only one predicate crime. the state election law.

it requires "unlawful means" which can be the violation of tax law or federal election law.

---

Well that is different than what we've been reading! Do you have the full instructions?


Found them!


https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

BMX Bandit said:

---

its still there:

Quote:

---

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.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that 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 conspiracy to promote or prevent an election .

Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed.

Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy

---

So it turns out, there is only one predicate crime. the state election law.

it requires "unlawful means" which can be the violation of tax law or federal election law.

---

That is really convoluted if even Turley and McCarthy cannot understand it. That requires a lot of speculation by the jury based on the paucity of evidence produced during the trial. The legal equivalent of a protracted differential equasion to get to Q.E.D.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

its still there:

Quote:

---

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.

Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that 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 conspiracy to promote or prevent an election .

Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed.

Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy

---

So it turns out, there is only one predicate crime. the state election law.

it requires "unlawful means" which can be the violation of tax law or federal election law.

---

That is really convoluted if even Turley and McCarthy cannot understand it. That requires a lot of speculation by the jury based on the paucity of evidence produced during the trial. The legal equivalent of a protracted differential equasion to get to Q.E.D.

---

Are state election laws even applicable in a federal office?

I get that states run their own elections

I just want to see the Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, Robert DeNiro after-party.

criminals and porn stars getting drunk and chanting u-s-a

Wild time to be alive. Sitting here watching all this go down.

nortex97 said:

---

Make no mistake, that is precisely what this is.

!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2024

---

I'm not sure if it's accurate, but I read yesterday that it is NY law (not sure if state or local) that the jury instructions be given orally. I have no idea what logic there is to that, but doing some googling and it seems like it's really not that unusual.

Its probably accurate that the AG of Missouri has never tried a case in New York.

The witch hunt part we know is accurate!

I would just remind everyone that media reports in every case are usually full of BS. Most people would have a completely different opinion of the Rittenhouse and Depp cases had they not been televised. Media reports are often completely wrong and misreport even basic things such as jury instructions and quotes from witnesses.

...So a dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records was zapped back into life by alleging that under NY election law 17-152 it was done to influence the election by the unlawful means of falsification of business records. It is so circular as to produce vertigo. So the jury…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 29, 2024

Quote:

---

So a dead misdemeanor for falsifying business records was zapped back into life by alleging that under NY election law 17-152 it was done to influence the election by the unlawful means of falsification of business records. It is so circular as to produce vertigo. So the jury finds some documents were falsified to use the unlawful means of falsifying other documents. That is only one of three possible crimes and the jury does not have to agree on which was the basis for their conviction.

---

...After the federal election violation, Merchan says that the second crime is falsifying other documents. This creates a redundancy with the NY election violation on the falsifying documents. It allows the government to allege the falsification of documents as a felony and then…

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) May 29, 2024

Quote:

---

After the federal election violation, Merchan says that the second crime is falsifying other documents. This creates a redundancy with the NY election violation on the falsifying documents. It allows the government to allege the falsification of documents as a felony and then allows such falsification to be also the unlawful means for certain documents. The third is the violation of tax laws.

---

There's pros and cons to that I think.

The jurors in the Kim Potter trial stated in media interviews that they spent a lot of time hyperanalyzing the instructions, even forming breakout groups at one point to try to decipher individual words. The big picture gets lost.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

---

This is misleading. He did specifically say they have to be unanimous to convict. They don't have to agree on the second crime (which raises to a felony), but they do have to agree that Trump falsified records to cover up a second crime. They also have to agree that there is a second crime. They could all agree that he falsified records, but one could not agree that it was covering up a second crime and that would be a hung jury. The only thing they don't have to agree on is what that second crime is.

AtticusMatlock said:

---

There's pros and cons to that I think.

The jurors in the Kim Potter trial stated in media interviews that they spent a lot of time hyperanalyzing the instructions, even forming breakout groups at one point to try to decipher individual words. The big picture gets lost.

---

I suppose you could say that you don't want the jury to try to decipher things on their own later and that if they have any questions about the instructions, only the judge can answer them. I guess that could be why you wouldn't want them written. Seems weird you let them take notes, though. It's possible someone didn't take good notes and they end up rely on that instead of the actual instructions.

Quote:

---

They don't have to agree on the second crime (which raises to a felony), but they do have to agree that Trump falsified records to cover up a second crime.

---

It appears this is not correct either! We were all wrong!

There is only 1 predicate crime in the Instructions, and the jurors must be unanimous in that Trump was intending to commit or cover up a violation of NEW YORK ELECTION LAW 17-152

Quote:

---

Are state election laws even applicable in a federal office?

---

There was some debate on that quesion. Unsure if it has ever been addressed using that statute.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

They don't have to agree on the second crime (which raises to a felony), but they do have to agree that Trump falsified records to cover up a second crime.

---

It appears this is not correct either! We were all wrong!

There is only 1 predicate crime in the Instructions, and the jurors must be unanimous in that Trump was intending to commit or cover up a violation of NEW YORK ELECTION LAW 17-152

---

So Merchan has changed the state's theory of the case yet again? That five hour summation by Steinglass yesterday certainly did not address all of that.

Quote:

---

So Merchan has changed the state's theory of the case yet again?

---

What did he change? This was one of the three listed from the start. This is also the predicate crime that Team Trump submitted in its proposed charge.

Quote:

---

That five hour summation by Steinglass yesterday certainly did not address all of that.

---

It would be the one thing he didn't mention!! LOL

And if you want this tyranny to stop, just substitute "Red" in place of "Blue". But too many people refuse to recognize what we are up against.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Wild that the jury has the case and no consensus has been reached as to wtf is going on here.

---

There have been many "slam dunk" cases that have still taken the jury several hours to come back to a verdict. It's usually on complex cases with many elements. There's lots of i's to dot and t's to cross.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Wild that the jury has the case and no consensus has been reached as to wtf is going on here.

---

Other than this case is a complete clusterf***, you mean? Pretty sure there is consensus on that.

---

Unanimous!

Every minute they are still deliberating has to be good for Team Trump, right?

Still cannot believe this circus. I'm hopeful independents are watching and grasping the severity of the sham that has been going on for weeks.

Agreed. Just going through 34 counts one by one will take a good while.

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

This reads bass ackwards to me. It should be "if the state doesn't meet the burden of proof you must find the defendant innocent " or something to that effect

Would pay good money to know what certain SCOTUS judges think about this sham trial and seemingly incompetent and vindictive judge.

aggiejayrod said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

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.

---

---

This reads bass ackwards to me. It should be "if the state doesn't meet the burden of proof you must find the defendant innocent " or something to that effect

---

From the jury instructions, page 12:

Quote:

---

The burden of proof never shifts from the People to the defendant. If the People fail to satisfy their burden of proof, you must find the defendant not guilty and if the People satisfy their burden of proof, you must find the defendant guilty.

---

Quote:

---

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley called it "the coup de grace instruction" from Judge Juan Merchan to the men and women of Donald Trump's NDA/Campaign Finance/Whatevs trial in New York City when he told jurors on Wednesday that they don't have to reach a unanimous guilty verdict to reach a unanimous guilty verdict.

Wait, wut?
Reporting live on X from the courtroom, Turley posted that Merchan instructed the jury "that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous."
So if a majority of jurors find Trump "not guilty" on all three charges, but they managed to scrape up a combined 12 votes from each charge, Judge Merchan will assemble those into a single unanimous guilty vote a Frankenverdict, if you will.

---

This is how Jame Gumb made his ladysuit. https://t.co/G0vicNwM99

— Stephen Green (@VodkaPundit) May 29, 2024

Quote:

---

Some readers might have to look up the Jame Gumb reference, but I won't judge.

My jaw really did (figuratively) drop to the floor at the news, but I was far from the only one. David "Iowahawk" Burge posted that "this kinda feels like some blow-up-in-your-face judicial Calvinball," and called Merchan's instructions "wishful thinking on the level of 'hey let's trap Godzilla with the high voltage lines.'"

---

Quote:

---

Then again, for a trial where not even the prosecution could point to exactly what the crime was, this latest absurdity is just one more nail in the coffin of American jurisprudence.

So what if there are seven votes for a guilty verdict on one part, four on another, but only one on the third? That still adds up to 12, right? So Trump is guilty? And if the verdict comes back 6 + 6 + 6...

---

LINK

KatyAggie2000 said:

---

Every minute they are still deliberating has to be good for Team Trump, right?

Still cannot believe this circus. I'm hopeful independents are watching and grasping the severity of the sham that has been going on for weeks.

---

The longer a deliberation goes, the better it is for the defense. If for no other reason than they're one minute closer to being hung.

The rule of thumb I keep hearing is that you should give the jury as long to deliberate as it took to present the case which is a very long time. But juries can get lazy when there are many counts or lesser and included charges to look at. Once they reach a consensus to convict on one charge, many jurors will throw in the towel on the other charges if there is a disagreement and the deliberation will generally wrap up soon after.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley called it "the coup de grace instruction" from Judge Juan Merchan to the men and women of Donald Trump's NDA/Campaign Finance/Whatevs trial in New York City when he told jurors on Wednesday that they don't have to reach a unanimous guilty verdict to reach a unanimous guilty verdict.

Wait, wut?
Reporting live on X from the courtroom, Turley posted that Merchan instructed the jury "that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous."
So if a majority of jurors find Trump "not guilty" on all three charges, but they managed to scrape up a combined 12 votes from each charge, Judge Merchan will assemble those into a single unanimous guilty vote a Frankenverdict, if you will.

---

This is how Jame Gumb made his ladysuit. https://t.co/G0vicNwM99

— Stephen Green (@VodkaPundit) May 29, 2024

Quote:

---

Some readers might have to look up the Jame Gumb reference, but I won't judge.

My jaw really did (figuratively) drop to the floor at the news, but I was far from the only one. David "Iowahawk" Burge posted that "this kinda feels like some blow-up-in-your-face judicial Calvinball," and called Merchan's instructions "wishful thinking on the level of 'hey let's trap Godzilla with the high voltage lines.'"

---

Quote:

---

Then again, for a trial where not even the prosecution could point to exactly what the crime was, this latest absurdity is just one more nail in the coffin of American jurisprudence.

So what if there are seven votes for a guilty verdict on one part, four on another, but only one on the third? That still adds up to 12, right? So Trump is guilty? And if the verdict comes back 6 + 6 + 6...

---

LINK

---

Such a load of Crap!! How in the world can this happen...