The Republic’s fate rests on juror 2. pic.twitter.com/8zHuhfIDMy

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) May 29, 2024

Im Gipper said:

---

lb3 said:

---

I was just explaining that the jury doesn't have to agree on what the underlying criminal act is, just that there was one.

---

Close, but not quite

They don't have to agree on what the unlawful act is.

Based on the instructions given, they must all agree that there was intent to commit or to conceal the commission of the violation of the New York election law.

---

I was using the felony murder example to illustrate jurors not needing to be in unanimous agreement, not the Trump case.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I'm just curious if any of you actually believe Trump. For example that he knew nothing about this and the encounter that Stormy described is entirely made up out of whole cloth.

---

What does that have to this case? Other than the prosecution using it to obfuscate the charges...

---

Just wondering if you believe the man is honest.

Or is he more like his chief of staff said. John Kelly:

"The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me. The dishonesty, the transactional nature of every relationship, though it's more pathetic than anything else. He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life," the retired Marine general has told friends, CNN has learned.

The defense is arguing that he knew nothing about any of this. And that does in fact go towards whether he is guilty or not. Or why else would that be his defense?

---

No offense, your name does not check out…you clearly have not followed this trial at all.

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

---

Is the "4-4-4" accurate or an opinion?

rgag12 said:

---

The Republic’s fate rests on juror 2. pic.twitter.com/8zHuhfIDMy

— RAMZPAUL (@ramzpaul) May 29, 2024

---

If the Republic dies, it is because Republicans refused to fight back.

Where are the GOP Attorney Generals and GOP District Attorneys? They should be flooding the courts with any and all measure of criminal charges in their jurisdictions against any and every Democrat possible.

I know Paxton is loved by the MAGA crowd... but where is his prosecution of trash like Lina Hidalgo?

Im Gipper said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, this will resonate YUGE with the black community who can recognize a railroad job when they see one.

---

Think he might crack that 15% mark?

---

Black women will still vote the same as they always do...

Black MEN might be swayed enough to break that 15%. As he said, they know a railroad job...

---

Well black men went 20% for Trump in 2020 so if he can't get over 15% in 2024 he's (we're) in deep trouble!

---

Wow...didn't realize it was that much.

agAngeldad said:

---

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

---

Is the "4-4-4" accurate or an opinion?

---

Based on what we've seen...it's accurate.

FriscoKid said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

I'm just curious if any of you actually believe Trump. For example that he knew nothing about this and the encounter that Stormy described is entirely made up out of whole cloth.

---

I think he cheated on his wife. I don't think he holds the same Christian values that I do. Is that worthy of 34 felony charges or is something else going on? Or, do you want to say that NDA's are illegal? I'm under about a dozen NDA's right now.

---

I hope, for your sake, Stormy isn't one of them.

That's dumb as ____. She didn't have to take the money to be quiet about her "encounter". She could have said "no thanks" and gone public with her story, but she took cash instead.

agAngeldad said:

---

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

---

Is the "4-4-4" accurate or an opinion?

---

But wouldn't that mean none of the crimes passed the reasonable doubt standard individually?

Very bad logic to consider that a conviction.

bmks270 said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

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

---

Is the "4-4-4" accurate or an opinion?

---

But wouldn't that mean none of the crimes passed the reasonable doubt standard individually?

Very bad logic to consider that a conviction.

---

On a naive level, I tend to agree that the underlying crime should be proven as an element of the crime of covering up the crime.

However, wouldn't that make it more likely that crimes would go unpunished when there is clear evidence of a cover up but the cover up is itself enough of a success to hide the crime itself?

One question I have is whether you have to be the one who committed the underlying crime in order to be charged with the cover up of that crime. I don't know if that is important in this case, though.

eric76 said:

---

bmks270 said:

---

agAngeldad said:

---

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

---

Is the "4-4-4" accurate or an opinion?

---

But wouldn't that mean none of the crimes passed the reasonable doubt standard individually?

Very bad logic to consider that a conviction.

---

On a naive level, I tend to agree that the underlying crime should be proven as an element of the crime of covering up the crime.

However, wouldn't that make it more likely that crimes would go unpunished when there is clear evidence of a cover up but the cover up is itself enough of a success to hide the crime itself?

One question I have is whether you have to be the one who committed the underlying crime in order to be charged with the cover up of that crime. I don't know if that is important in this case, though.

---

Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that guilty verdicts be unanimous in trials for serious crimes. Only cases in Oregon and Louisiana were affected by the ruling because every other state already had this requirement. The decision incorporated the Sixth Amendment requirement for unanimous jury criminal convictions against the states, and thereby overturned the Court's previous decision from the 1972 cases Apodaca v. Oregon[1][2] and Johnson v. Louisiana.[3]

This is naive but how can what the Judge said not be overturned by a higher court? Everything I've read says this was illegal & basically saying to the jury find a way to convict.

Surely there are judge oversights ?

There's been so much confusion in this cluster-fk case from the start, no one knew what was going on. But now that we have the instructions, we can discuss what actually has to be proven.

1. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump made or caused to be made a false business record

2. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump did so with a fraudulent intent

3. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump's fraudulent intent to commit or cover up the commission of New York election law 17-152, in that he conspired to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means

4. The jury does not have to agree on what those unlawful means are. The unlawful means the jury may consider are violations of FECA, violations of tax laws and falsification of other business records.


That is what the instructions are. Confusing AF I agree. I don't know the standard for giving the jury the instructions in New York, but to me it's nuts they don't have them.

There is one predicate crime (violation of New York election law) that the jury must agree on beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone still saying the jury does not have to agree on the predicate crime is either lying to you or didn't bother to read the instructions.

Reasonable people can have different opinions on the appropriateness or constitutionality of the instructions.

The argument centers around whether a jury has to agree on the unlawful means by which the crime was committed.

There's a Supreme Court case from 1991 Schad v Arizona in which plurality (Souter, Rehnquist, Kennedy & O'conner) pointed out:

Our cases reflect a long-established rule of the criminal law that an indictment need not specify which overt act, among several named, was the means by which a crime was committed. In Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481 (1898), for example, we sustained a murder conviction against the challenge that the indictment on which the verdict was returned was duplicitous in charging that death occurred through both shooting and drowning. In holding that "the Government was not required to make the charge in the alternative," id., at 504, we explained that it was immaterial whether death was caused by one means or the other.

Scalia concurrence added:

As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission…That rule is not only constitutional, it is probably indispensable in a system that requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. When a woman's charred body has been found in a burned house, and there is ample evidence that the defendant set out to kill her, it would be absurd to set him free because six jurors believe he strangled her to death (and caused the fire accidentally in his hasty escape), while six others believe he left her unconscious and set the fire to kill her. While that seems perfectly obvious, it is also true, as the plurality points out, see ante, at 7, that one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.


Im not implying this Schad case closes the door on discussion. Far from it. In the coming days we will probably see articles from great appellate lawyers distinguishing it. That's what they are good at.

I cite it to show that the answer is clear as mud here and if Trump is convicted, he very well may be out of office in 2029 when this thing is finally finished.

BMX Bandit said:

---

There's been so much confusion in this cluster-fk case from the start, no one knew what was going on. But now that we have the instructions, we can discuss what actually has to be proven.

1. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump made or caused to be made a false business record

2. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump did so with a fraudulent intent

3. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump's fraudulent intent to commit or cover up the commission of New York election law 17-152, in that he conspired to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means

4. The jury does not have to agree on what those unlawful means are. The unlawful means the jury may consider are violations of FECA, violations of tax laws and falsification of other business records.


That is what the instructions are. Confusing AF I agree. I don't know the standard for giving the jury the instructions in New York, but to me it's nuts they don't have them.

There is one predicate crime (violation of New York election law) that the jury must agree on beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone still saying the jury does not have to agree on the predicate crime is either lying to you or didn't bother to read the instructions.

People can have different opinions on the appropriateness or constitutionality of the instructions.

The argument centers around whether a jury has to agree on the unlawful means by which the crime was committed. Supreme Court case

---

Would the "illegal means" itself indicate a crime? Would it be possible to have "illegal means" that are not a crime?

So the jurors must agree that he violated election law, but not in how he violated it?

I'm glad that I'm not on the jury.

Exactly.

More here: (Powerline paraphrasing/quoting Andrew McCarthy):

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Ordinarily, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor under New York penal law. The statute that enhances the offense into a felony requires proof of fraudulent intent to conceal "another crime." New York's constitution forbids such vague incorporation by reference; to be valid the statute would have to prescribe what other crimes trigger the felony enhancement. That is especially true in this case, in which Bragg (a) is claiming the other crime is a violation of FECA, for which Congress has vested the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission with exclusive enforcement jurisdiction, and (b) is alternatively claiming the other crime is a misdemeanor violation of New York election law. In New York, misdemeanors have a two-year statute of limitations, and the potential penalty is less than a year's imprisonment; yet Bragg is claiming that if one falsifies records (misdemeanor) to unlawfully influence an election (misdemeanor), the prosecutor can somehow inflate the crime into a felony with a four-year prison term and a six-year statute of limitations. If the business-records-falsification statute were intended to allow such a counterintuitive result, it was incumbent on the legislature to spell that out. Empire State lawmakers did not do so.
Then there is the indictment. It put the defense on no notice of what "other crime" Trump was alleged to have concealed. As I contended yesterday, this was not an oversight; Bragg knew it would be controversial to proclaim in clear terms the power and intention to enforce federal law against a defendant whom the federal agencies with authority to prosecute investigated and as to whom they decided, for sound legal reasons, not to bring charges. The failure to provide a defendant with notice of the charges in the indictment violates the federal Constitution and it strongly suggests that the grand jury did not find probable cause of the other crimes that Bragg now alleges (there is no "other crime" pled in the indictment).

---

McCarthy adds this (emphasis in original):

Quote:

---

Without being limited to the charges in the indictment, as prosecutors are supposed to be, they presented the case to the jury as if the charge were conspiracy to influence the 2016 election by burying politically damaging information. To say that this conspiracy appears nowhere in the indictment does not explain the half of it. It is not a crime to conspire to influence an election unless one does so by unlawful means (that's the afore-described New York misdemeanor), and there is nothing unlawful per se about burying politically damaging information.

---

---

And John is right that it's not a 'hush money' case, it's about an accounting classification for a payment to a fraudulent attorney after the election was over, which may not even have been incorrect, and about which there is zero evidence Trump even knew how it was recorded:

Quote:

---

This is often referred to as the "hush money case," but paying hush money is perfectly legal. Based on press accounts, I wonder whether the jury even understands that there was nothing wrong, legally, with Trump paying Stormy Daniels to keep her mouth shut. The alleged "crime" was characterizing the Trump organization's payments to Michael Cohen's law firm, reimbursing Cohen for making the payment to Daniels, as "legal services" in corporate records.

This is about as absurd an excuse for a crime as one can imagine. To begin with, it is trivial. Moreover, it is not at all clear that the characterization was wrong. Cohen paid Daniels, and the Trump organization reimbursed Cohen's firm. Reimbursements of expenses paid by law firms on behalf of their clients are commonly included on bills for "legal services." So what?

But all of that is moot, since filing a false corporate document is a misdemeanor on which the statute of limitation ran long ago. It can be revived as a felony only if the false filing was made in order to cover up another crime. This is where things get truly ridiculous.

---

Thanks for getting the funniest post of the day out of the way.

It's the 4 + 4 + 4 thing that so confusing.

Yes, I can see how someone can be fully of a crime but the jury need not agree on a predicate crime.

But, to allow the jury to not need have, at a minimum, a plurality that a single predicate crime occurred seems very unfair.

Quote:

---

There's a Supreme Court case from 1991 Schad v Arizona in which plurality (Souter, Rehnquist, Kennedy & O'conner) pointed out:

Our cases reflect a long-established rule of the criminal law that an indictment need not specify which overt act, among several named, was the means by which a crime was committed. In Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481 (1898), for example, we sustained a murder conviction against the challenge that the indictment on which the verdict was returned was duplicitous in charging that death occurred through both shooting and drowning. In holding that "the Government was not required to make the charge in the alternative," id., at 504, we explained that it was immaterial whether death was caused by one means or the other.

Scalia concurrence added:

As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission…That rule is not only constitutional, it is probably indispensable in a system that requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. When a woman's charred body has been found in a burned house, and there is ample evidence that the defendant set out to kill her, it would be absurd to set him free because six jurors believe he strangled her to death (and caused the fire accidentally in his hasty escape), while six others believe he left her unconscious and set the fire to kill her. While that seems perfectly obvious, it is also true, as the plurality points out, see ante, at 7, that one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.


Im not implying this Schad case closes the door on discussion. Far from it. In the coming days we will probably see articles from great appellate lawyers distinguishing it. That's what they are good at.

I cite it to show that the answer is clear as mud here and if Trump is convicted, he very well may be out of office in 2029 when this thing is finally finished.

---

There's a difference. SCOTUS precedent and the Constitution require a unanimous verdict on every element of the crime. In the hypothetical, the means of the murder is not an element of the crime. The murder itself is.

In this case the "unlawful means" is not only an element, but the central cog in the entire case that makes it a felony. Without that, you don't have a case at all.

Richardson vs. United States (1999) lays this out.

Held: A jury in a 848 case must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some "continuing series of violations," but also about which specific "violations" make up that "continuing series." Pp. 817-824.

Trump is accused of making a "continuing series" of violations including the "unlawful means".

Agthatbuilds said:

---

It's the 4 + 4 + 4 thing that so confusing.

Yes, I can see how someone can be fully of a crime but the jury need not agree on a predicate crime.

But, to allow the jury to not need have, at a minimum, a plurality that a single predicate crime occurred seems very unfair.

---

I believe the confusion is all stemming from the layperson's understanding of "unanimous" verdict. I'm struggling with it and Richardson may show a precedent that Merchan's instructions are impermissible.

In the schad case, commiting theft was a key element of the felony murder charge also.

The issue there was some jurors could think he committed theft and didn't mean to kill the person, some could think it was premeditated murder.

It should also be noted that Trump is not accused of "continuing violations" like in Richardson. He is accused of 34 separate acts. In Richardson, the very definition of the statute required "continuing violations."

As said above, there are ways to distinguish the Schad case. But I don't think it's as simple as the "element" issue. It's also true that Richardson does not end the discussion

BMX Bandit said:

---

To me, because the unlawful means alleged is literally the violation of another statute, it would seem unanimity wouid be required. Case law aside, I think it should.

This would be great case for scotus because the sides would be very different for an "ordinary" defendant. I 100% guarantee sotomayor would say unanimous required if it was some poor minority accused. With Trump, she'll have a change of heart.

---

and she'll cry about the 6-3 L.

This has to be what the jury saw when the prosecution and the judge were laying out the case

Mornin', folks.

CNN live blog feed if HERE

We might be able to read some tea leaves this morning seeing which instructions the jury wants to hear again or if they require the entire presentation.

The jury really seems focused of David Pecker testimony which does not look good for the Defense.

This if from John Yoo, former federal prosecutor:

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, prosecutors left the legal charges unconstitutionally vague. They elevated a claim of bookkeeping fraud, usually a misdemeanor, into a felony with serious jail time by claiming that accounting shenanigans had enabled some greater crime. Prosecutors never made clear that other crime. They have implied that Trump's $150,000 nondisclosure agreement with Clifford amounted to an illegal campaign contribution, even though Trump surely would have paid for Clifford's silence regardless of whether he was running for office (the test for determining what is a campaign expenditure). To make the case even weaker, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution prohibits state officials from enforcing federal laws that authority resides only with the president, the attorney general, and the federal agencies.

---

Quote:

---

The superficiality of the facts and the vagueness of the crimes magnify the harm that Democrats have inflicted on our political norms. Make no mistake, Democrats have crossed a constitutional Rubicon. For the first time in American history, they have brought criminal charges against a former president. For the first time in American history, they have brought criminal charges against the major (and leading) opposition candidate for president during the campaign. If elected leaders, whom our constitutional system vests with the authority over prosecution, must break American political practice that goes back to 1789, they should do so for a compelling reason and an airtight case. Instead, they've brought a prosecution in which the facts presented had almost nothing to do with the charges and the charges are unconstitutionally vague and beyond the authority of the district attorney. The weakness of the case against Trump lowers the bar for prosecuting future presidents below that for prosecuting garden-variety criminals in New York City. While Bragg scrutinizes Trump for alleged accounting misdeeds, he has sought no bail and little jail time for such crimes as theft and assault.

---

Quote:

---

Regardless of the trial's outcome, its consequences will have a profound effect on the presidency. The weaker the Trump cases are, the more open the invitation is to future prosecutors of presidents of the opposite party. After this Trump trial, any city, county, or state prosecutor might be encouraged to prosecute any federal officer for conjured violations of a state's criminal law or other patently partisan reasons. A state DA in upstate New York, for example, could prosecute former president Barack Obama for murder for having ordered a drone strike on al-Qaeda leaders that included an American from Buffalo. A California DA could prosecute George W. Bush for kidnapping a San Francisco resident who was captured by American forces while fighting for the Taliban.

---

LINK

Unconfirmed reports CNN is playing in the Manhattan jury room.





I kid, just made that up, but it's fake but accurate. Amazing that so many read the NY Slimes still though. The gray lady is pure trash.

BMX Bandit said:

---

There's been so much confusion in this cluster-fk case from the start, no one knew what was going on. But now that we have the instructions, we can discuss what actually has to be proven.

1. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump made or caused to be made a false business record

2. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump did so with a fraudulent intent

3. The jury must unanimously agree that Trump's fraudulent intent to commit or cover up the commission of New York election law 17-152, in that he conspired to promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means

4. The jury does not have to agree on what those unlawful means are. The unlawful means the jury may consider are violations of FECA, violations of tax laws and falsification of other business records.


That is what the instructions are. Confusing AF I agree. I don't know the standard for giving the jury the instructions in New York, but to me it's nuts they don't have them.

There is one predicate crime (violation of New York election law) that the jury must agree on beyond a reasonable doubt. Anyone still saying the jury does not have to agree on the predicate crime is either lying to you or didn't bother to read the instructions.

Reasonable people can have different opinions on the appropriateness or constitutionality of the instructions.

The argument centers around whether a jury has to agree on the unlawful means by which the crime was committed.

There's a Supreme Court case from 1991 Schad v Arizona in which plurality (Souter, Rehnquist, Kennedy & O'conner) pointed out:

Our cases reflect a long-established rule of the criminal law that an indictment need not specify which overt act, among several named, was the means by which a crime was committed. In Andersen v. United States, 170 U.S. 481 (1898), for example, we sustained a murder conviction against the challenge that the indictment on which the verdict was returned was duplicitous in charging that death occurred through both shooting and drowning. In holding that "the Government was not required to make the charge in the alternative," id., at 504, we explained that it was immaterial whether death was caused by one means or the other.

Scalia concurrence added:

As the plurality observes, it has long been the general rule that when a single crime can be committed in various ways, jurors need not agree upon the mode of commission…That rule is not only constitutional, it is probably indispensable in a system that requires a unanimous jury verdict to convict. When a woman's charred body has been found in a burned house, and there is ample evidence that the defendant set out to kill her, it would be absurd to set him free because six jurors believe he strangled her to death (and caused the fire accidentally in his hasty escape), while six others believe he left her unconscious and set the fire to kill her. While that seems perfectly obvious, it is also true, as the plurality points out, see ante, at 7, that one can conceive of novel "umbrella" crimes (a felony consisting of either robbery or failure to file a tax return) where permitting a 6-6 verdict would seem contrary to due process.


Im not implying this Schad case closes the door on discussion. Far from it. In the coming days we will probably see articles from great appellate lawyers distinguishing it. That's what they are good at.

I cite it to show that the answer is clear as mud here and if Trump is convicted, he very well may be out of office in 2029 when this thing is finally finished.

---

Have Trump and his lawyers known that there was only 1 predicate crime this whole time? Because it didn't seem like anyone else did.

agAngeldad said:

---

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

---

Is the "4-4-4" accurate or an opinion?

---

It's mostly accurate.

In order for Trump to be brought to trial, the prosecution needed to have a felony offense. Calling the way he booked the Cohen payments criminal wasn't enough, as that's only a misdemeanor.

So there needed to be a second crime he was trying to cover up to make those bookkeeping entries felonious.

So the state has settled on NY election law. Though nothing specific. They've thrown out a number of possibilities that could have happened, and then given the jury license to individually pick any portion of the law that they think he might have broken.

It is this wide interpretation of NY election law and what might have been the object crime that the jury doesn't have to agree on.

I don't know when they knew it, but in the jury instructions they submitted two weeks ago, they only listed one predicate crime.

I suspect they've known along, because you never actually heard them make any arguments that they didn't know what the crime was. At least none that I ever saw.


It's incredibly convoluted. There is only one predicate crime, but here are three crimes that you may consider to determine if the predicate crime was committed.


Unless you were reading every single brief and at every hearing, it's easy to see how people would be confused. Myself included


And one of those theories is that Trump caused fraudulent documents to be made in order to promote himself to elected office, by Using fraudulent documents.

The more I think about this, I think that there may be a very strong point for Trump. I don't see how you can have the original crime through the unlawful means of that same crime.

Telling the jury they may consider that seems to be erroneous