Quote:

---

S 380.30 Time for pronouncing sentence.
1. In general. Sentence must be pronounced without unreasonable delay.
2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:
(a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or
(b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in
article four hundred; or
(c) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.
* 2. Court to fix time. Upon entering a conviction the court must:
(a) Fix a date for pronouncing sentence; or
(b) Fix a date for one of the pre-sentence proceedings specified in
article four hundred; or
(c) Issue an order deferring sentencing in accordance with the
provisions of subdivision three of this section; or
(d) Pronounce sentence on the date the conviction is entered in
accordance with the provisions of subdivision three.
*** NB Expired March 31, 1994
3. Sentence on date of conviction. The court may sentence the
defendant at the time the conviction is entered if:
(a) A pre-sentence report or a fingerprint report is not required; or
(b) Where any such report is required, the report has been received.
Provided, however, that the court may not pronounce sentence at such
time without inquiring as to whether an adjournment is desired by the
defendant. Where an adjournment is requested, the defendant must state
the purpose thereof and the court may, in its discretion, allow a
reasonable time.

---

LINK

I've had this same thought too. If I recall correctly, aren't alternate jurors usually cut loose after the closing arguments have been completed and the case is sent to the jury?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.

---

Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.

---

This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.

First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.

Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.

Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.

---

Hell, let's not forget the use of FISA against political opponents and wiretapping campaign headquarters.

---

Illegality for illegality only takes us farther from our Constitutional Republic. Integrity and Constitutionality has to be restored to the DOJ.

Quote:

---

The jury has now had the case in its hands for more than seven hours.
The panel of 12 New Yorkers will determine whether former President Donald Trump is guilty of 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to an adult film star before the 2016 presidential election.
All 12 jurors have to be present to deliberate and they must be unanimous in their decision on each of the counts.

---

Quote:

---

Apart from the 12 jurors deliberating in Donald Trump's hush money trial, six alternate jurors were selected before the opening statements began. They are not participating in deliberations, but they have to remain in the Manhattan courthouse.
Judge Juan Merchan on Wednesday thanked the alternates for their diligence before telling them they were not excused. "We're not going to excuse you just yet. Please remain with us because there might be a need for you at some point during deliberations," Merchan said.

Quote:

---

Merchan complimented the alternate jurors saying he noticed how they were all engaged. He addressed one specifically, saying he noticed how that juror went through several notebooks.

---

"You've been with us for a long time, and you've been incredibly diligent, incredibly hard-working," Merchan told the alternates.
Some background: New York criminal procedure law outlines several cases in which an alternate would replace a juror, and that juror would be dismissed, during a trial or deliberations.
Some of those reasons include if a juror gets sick "or other incapacity," the juror is not available to serve on the jury anymore or a juror does not show up to court, among others.

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.

---

Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.

---

This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.

First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.

Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.

Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.

---

Hell, let's not forget the use of FISA against political opponents and wiretapping campaign headquarters.

---

Illegality for illegality only takes us farther from our Constitutional Republic. Integrity and Constitutionality has to be restored to the DOJ.

---

Might have to spit on our hands and raise the black flag in order to restore it.

Zeke1995 said:

---

I've had this same thought too. If I recall correctly, aren't alternate jurors usually cut loose after the closing arguments have been completed and the case is sent to the jury?

---

In my experience yes.

Further, a few weeks back when Merchan was practically ordering counsel to begin closing arguments last Tuesday, he stated he was planning to be able to dscharge the alternates on Thursday when the jury began deliberations. That was orignally his plan back then. I have not seen anny official reason for his change of heart on that.

hunter2012 said:

---

is he being optimistic or is that just lawyer-speak?

---

hard to tell yet. But no quickie conviction/"can we stay late" request yesterday suggests there's at least hold-outs.

agracer said:

---

Please education me on this.

If they come back with a guilty verdict, does Trump go right to jail? Or does he stay out until the sentencing phase?

Sentencing phase, does that happen later?

If it's later, what it Trump does not show up b/c the Secret Service won't let him b/c going to jail is a very high risk environment for a candidate under SS protection and they cannot protect him there?

---

According to Dan Bongino yesterday:

1) The current head of the Secret Service is a rabid liberal who doesn't like or respect Trump. That said, who knows what she will allow that's against the law.
2) If the SS agents follow protocol, they can designate any area to be a safe space in order to protect the (any) President from threats. So, if they're doing their job(s), a whole wing of the prison can be designated a safe space, where even the guards would be required to leave their guns behind (outside of that space).

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump.

Merchan issued instructions to the jury of seven men and five women Wednesday, pointing them to some of the key evidence in the case prior to the panel beginning its deliberations. Dershowitz admitted he was speculating during Wednesday's episode of "The Dershow" about Merchan's reason for keeping the alternates available, but said he had seen a judge in an unrelated case make a similar move.

---

Quote:

---

"I admit this is highly, highly speculative, but there… I know a case on this, so that I'm not making it up: The judge said he's not going to dismiss the alternate jurors until there's an absolute verdict," Dershowitz said. "One possible reason for that, again, I want to emphasize that I'm speculating, one possible reason for this might be following, it is quite cynical: Let's assume that the jurors come back and say, 'Sorry we're, uh, we're deadlocked. We have one juror who just won't give in. Well, there are eleven of us who think he's guilty.' By the way, the jurors don't say what they think, they just say there's a deadlock, but if they come back that way, the inference will be that the jury is, that is, is locked eleven to one in favor of conviction.'"

---

Quote:

---

"So the judge hears from the jurors and the judge hears that they're eleven to one and then the judge says, 'Well is that other juror, the twelfth juror, is he negotiating? Is he involved in the conversations?' And the foreman to the jury says 'No, he's refusing, he's sitting there with his arms folded, saying, 'Guy's innocent, sorry, guy's innocent, I'm not going to listen to you. The guy's innocent, there's no case here, the guy's innocent,'" Dershowitz continued. "If I were on the jury, that's what I'd be doing, and then the judge has the power, rarely, rarely, exercised, but he has the power, I've seen it done, to say 'Well, if this juror won't deliberate, then he's violating his oath, and I'm going to substitute one of the alternate jurors for that juror,' and then immediately, they come back with a twelve to nothing verdict of conviction."

---

Quote:

---

"I'm not saying that that's going to happen, I'm not saying that's even in the judge's mind, but knowing this judge and seeing him in action, particularly having seen him in action on the day I was in the court when they cleared everybody but I was allowed to stay, why, I still don't know, and I saw the real Judge Merchan," Dershowitz said. "Um, that's not beyond the realm of possibility, so anything's possible. This judge wants Donald Trump convicted."

---

LINK

---

I call BS on this. Correct me if I'm wrong but the judge, or anybody for that matter, is not allowed to ask anything regarding their deliberations and they are not allowed to say anything to anyone outside the jury room. The only communication allowed outside the jury room during deliberations is questions regarding instructions or to review evidence presented in court.

The judge cannot ask what the vote is or how many holdouts there are, who the holdouts are, or anything regarding the deliberation itself.

txags92 said:

---

MagnumLoad said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.

---

Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.

---

This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.

First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.

Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.

Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.

---

Hell, let's not forget the use of FISA against political opponents and wiretapping campaign headquarters.

---

Illegality for illegality only takes us farther from our Constitutional Republic. Integrity and Constitutionality has to be restored to the DOJ.

---

Might have to spit on our hands and raise the black flag in order to restore it.

---

Possibly. A better option is to vote out the dems and clean house completely at the DOJ and subsets

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

hunter2012 said:

---

is he being optimistic or is that just lawyer-speak?

---

hard to tell yet. But no quickie conviction/"can we stay late" request yesterday suggests there's at least hold-outs.

---

I wouldn't say there are hold outs as much as the initial straw poll was split enough that they were not close enough yet.

aggiehawg said:

---

Zeke1995 said:

---

I've had this same thought too. If I recall correctly, aren't alternate jurors usually cut loose after the closing arguments have been completed and the case is sent to the jury?

---

In my experience yes.

Further, a few weeks back when Merchan was practically ordering counsel to begin closing arguments last Tuesday, he stated he was planning to be able to dscharge the alternates on Thursday when the jury began deliberations. That was orignally his plan back then. I have not seen anny official reason for his change of heart on that.

---

Someone feeding him information there are holdouts on a conviction?

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

---

Refusing to join with fellow jurors in reaching a unanimous verdict is not grounds for dismissal.

It sounds highly improper, but if the jury is hung and Merchan pulls this stunt to orchestrate a conviction, I fear there will be significant violence.

Muy said:

---

In the old, normal America this was the rule.

---

It's blatant judicial misconduct and he would be immediately de-robed and disbarred if he did anything like that.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

It sounds highly improper, but if the jury is hung and Merchan pulls this stunt to orchestrate a conviction, I fear there will be significant violence.

---

He wouldn't. The guy is a TDS-stricken hack but he's not stupid.

AggieUSMC said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump.

Merchan issued instructions to the jury of seven men and five women Wednesday, pointing them to some of the key evidence in the case prior to the panel beginning its deliberations. Dershowitz admitted he was speculating during Wednesday's episode of "The Dershow" about Merchan's reason for keeping the alternates available, but said he had seen a judge in an unrelated case make a similar move.

---

Quote:

---

"I admit this is highly, highly speculative, but there… I know a case on this, so that I'm not making it up: The judge said he's not going to dismiss the alternate jurors until there's an absolute verdict," Dershowitz said. "One possible reason for that, again, I want to emphasize that I'm speculating, one possible reason for this might be following, it is quite cynical: Let's assume that the jurors come back and say, 'Sorry we're, uh, we're deadlocked. We have one juror who just won't give in. Well, there are eleven of us who think he's guilty.' By the way, the jurors don't say what they think, they just say there's a deadlock, but if they come back that way, the inference will be that the jury is, that is, is locked eleven to one in favor of conviction.'"

---

Quote:

---

"So the judge hears from the jurors and the judge hears that they're eleven to one and then the judge says, 'Well is that other juror, the twelfth juror, is he negotiating? Is he involved in the conversations?' And the foreman to the jury says 'No, he's refusing, he's sitting there with his arms folded, saying, 'Guy's innocent, sorry, guy's innocent, I'm not going to listen to you. The guy's innocent, there's no case here, the guy's innocent,'" Dershowitz continued. "If I were on the jury, that's what I'd be doing, and then the judge has the power, rarely, rarely, exercised, but he has the power, I've seen it done, to say 'Well, if this juror won't deliberate, then he's violating his oath, and I'm going to substitute one of the alternate jurors for that juror,' and then immediately, they come back with a twelve to nothing verdict of conviction."

---

Quote:

---

"I'm not saying that that's going to happen, I'm not saying that's even in the judge's mind, but knowing this judge and seeing him in action, particularly having seen him in action on the day I was in the court when they cleared everybody but I was allowed to stay, why, I still don't know, and I saw the real Judge Merchan," Dershowitz said. "Um, that's not beyond the realm of possibility, so anything's possible. This judge wants Donald Trump convicted."

---

LINK

---

I call BS on this. Correct me if I'm wrong but the judge, or anybody for that matter, is not allowed to ask anything regarding their deliberations and they are not allowed to say anything to anyone outside the jury room. The only communication allowed outside the jury room during deliberations is questions regarding instructions or to review evidence presented in court.

The judge cannot ask what the vote is or how many holdouts there are, who the holdouts are, or anything regarding the deliberation itself.

---

I did think Dersh was getting way out in front of his skis on this. However, this jury is not sequestered meaning they could do their own research (and those lawyers on the jury would be sorely tempted by this mess of jury instructions, IMO) and should that occur by the lawyers or anyone else and discussed in the deliberation room, the foreman will likely tell the bailiff or supervising deputy. And they, in turn, would so inform the judge.

I could see that as a possibility.

Good. Hello Boogaloo

AggieUSMC said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

---

Refusing to join with fellow jurors in reaching a unanimous verdict is not grounds for dismissal.

---

Hence the need for attorneys on the jury to provide the grounds for dismissal. I put nothing past this miscreant judge nor the Prosecutors.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

It sounds highly improper, but if the jury is hung and Merchan pulls this stunt to orchestrate a conviction, I fear there will be significant violence.

---

He wouldn't. The guy is a TDS-stricken hack but he's not stupid.

---

Maybe not stupid maybe compromised.

He is holding them because this could take a while which increases the chance of losing a juror. Also, he doesn't want any information leaking out to the press before the verdict.

If a juror functioning in appropriate capacity is recused by the judge and replaced by an alternate how could a mistrial not immediately follow?

My guess is the above would result in Trump becoming unhinged to the public and another inciting resurrection narrative would be the angle.

I'm not ready to put my tinfoil hat on this one yet.

richardag said:

---

AggieUSMC said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

It sounds highly improper, but if the jury is hung and Merchan pulls this stunt to orchestrate a conviction, I fear there will be significant violence.

---

He wouldn't. The guy is a TDS-stricken hack but he's not stupid.

---

Maybe not stupid maybe compromised.

---

Maybe compromised??? He was hand-picked by the DOJ. No way on God's green earth this eunuch of a judge isn't compromised. He was bought off months, maybe years ago. Determining when he sold his soul is the only question one should have regarding him

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

---

You can't remove jurors bc they are a hold out. As biased as Merchan has been I'd be astonished if they replace jurors bc they are holdouts in favor of jurors who will convict. I'd love to hear the reasoning. Our system just doesn't allow that. Why even have a jury then if you can just swap them out after the fact until you find ones that will give you the result you want?

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

He is holding them because this could take a while which increases the chance of losing a juror. Also, he doesn't want any information leaking out to the press before the verdict.

---

He could release them while retaining them as on call and subject to the same restrictions as during trial, no discussing the case with anyone, particularly the media. Violation of that order could result in fines and jail time.

Because this time special Conside(R)ations need to be made.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

richardag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Wednesday that it is possible New York Judge Juan Merchan is not dismissing alternate jurors in order to deal with a holdout that will not convict former President Donald Trump. …,,,

---

---

The cynic in me believes this is another reason there are 2 attorneys on the jury. If they fail to convince a juror or jurors to convict what better way to have them removed based on the advice of these 2 attorneys.

---

You can't remove jurors bc they are a hold out. As biased as Merchan has been I'd be astonished if they replace jurors bc they are holdouts in favor of jurors who will convict. I'd love to hear the reasoning. Our system just doesn't allow that. Why even have a jury then if you can just swap them out after the fact until you find ones that will give you the result you want?

---

Any juror that is a holdout needs to absolutely mind their Ps and Qs in how they argue and act. The two attorneys know what juror misconduct is, and it wouldn't be hard for them to get a message to the judge that a juror is not following the rules and get them replaced. Also wouldn't be hard for the DOJ to keep an eye on the web surfing habits of the jurors and let the judge know if one of them starts searching for info about the trial in their spare time.

KatyAggie2000 said:

---

If a juror functioning in appropriate capacity is recused by the judge and replaced by an alternate how could a mistrial not immediately follow?

My guess is the above would result in Trump becoming unhinged to the public and another inciting resurrection narrative would be the angle.

---

Deliberations would start over.

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump and his team have been watching news coverage of the trial on a television that was brought into the room they are waiting in, two sources familiar with the setup tell CNN.

Trump has also spent a lot of his time watching clips of allies and surrogates defending him on television. The clips were sent to him and advisers at the courthouse, one source said.

---

Let's assume hung jury. How long will the judge send them back to continue deliberating to try and break the holdout(s)?

MagnumLoad said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

jrdaustin said:

---

CyclingAg82 said:

---

Hungry Ojos said:

---

So where are all you at after all of this? For 46 years on this Earth, I have NEVER even entertained lawfare against political enemies. But this has changed everything. They are not going to stop until the right does something to make them. I say it's all fair game now. They should have to sleep in the bed they made. I hope Trump makes all of their lives as ridiculously miserable as they have made his, once he wins back the presidency. I just don't care anymore.

---

Too many R's believe in the Marques of Queensbury rules. They will hold hearings, make accusations, bluster but at the end of the day they do nothing (Lerner and Holder come to mind). They are wusses.

The d's are dirty evil and will use their system to exact revenge on their opponents.

---

This. Democrats have changed the rules twice now.

First, they've redefined impeachment down to excerpts from phone calls and public speeches in order to attack their target.

Now, they've redefined criminality to threaten decades of jail time against a political opponent for how their records are recorded in their private books.

Republicans will have no choice but to play by their rules. Otherwise, these strategies will continue unabated.

---

Hell, let's not forget the use of FISA against political opponents and wiretapping campaign headquarters.

---

Illegality for illegality only takes us farther from our Constitutional Republic. Integrity and Constitutionality has to be restored to the DOJ.

---

And this attitude is why things will continue unabated. Perhaps we should hold some more hearings, or issue a few more sternly worded letters.