These New York moonbats sat there for 6-weeks and now they struggling with this records case.

What did they think was gonna happen?

'we got a question'

'can you read the instructions again'

'what does this word mean'

This their day in the sun and they savoring every moment.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

These New York moonbats sat there for 6-weeks and now they struggling with this records case.

What did they think was gonna happen?

'we got a question'

'can you read the instructions again'

'what does this word mean'

This their day in the sun and they savoring every moment.

---

In their defense, this entire trial has been confusing as hell. It's been anything but straight forward.

Then the judge and his 55 pages of jury instructions that they can't even take with them?

This may be the most insane trial in the history of our nation...and that's saying something considering our history.

Is this what causes the cold civil war to turn hot?

As much random useless testimony was given in this trial, I don't recall the prosecution ever presenting legal reasoning why entering the expense into the books as "legal expenses" is illegal…which is the whole point of the case.

Thus, I can understand why the jury would be confused as hell about what they're supposed to be finding. I'd guess you have a room of a few honest very confused jurors surrounded by orange man bad sheep trying to convince them it doesn't matter he has to be guilty.

Lol no

How long were the OJ Simpson (criminal) jury instructions? Heck, what famous American trials have had jury instructions (not provided in writing) that went over 50 pages, or even approximated roughly to that?

55 pages is "long" for a hyper-complex commercial case let alone a criminal case that would be entirely picayune but for the name of the defendant.

nortex97 said:

---

How long were the OJ Simpson (criminal) jury instructions? Heck, what famous American trials have had jury instructions (not provided in writing) that went over 50 pages, or even approximated roughly to that?

---

Well, you got me curious...so I copied and pasted Judge Ito's jury instructions into a Word document.

10 pages.

Quote:

---

I can understand why the jury would be confused as hell about what they're supposed to be finding.

---

We balls deep and if people still confused then that favors acquittal.

It's the prosecutions job to make this case and it seems obvious they didn't do that.

It ain't the jury's job to strain this turd.

Prosecution didn't make the case. Didn't carry the state's burden of proof.

The longer this rolls on it looks less good for Trump.

I disagree. An acquittal was never going to happen. The longer this goes on, the more likely it results in a hung jury, which is the best that Trump could hope for. That bing said, it could be a hung jury until it isn't, and the one or two holdouts finally give in just to be done with it.

Yeah, I'm pretty optimistic that we at least get a hung jury at this point. Fingers crossed...

You might be right. Like somebody said above, who knows what lengths they'll go to avoid a hung jury.

Hungry Ojos said:

---

Yeah, I'm pretty optimistic that we at least get a hung jury at this point. Fingers crossed...

---

Honestly, a mistrial would be the best outcome for almost all parties involved, especially the jurors.

More CNN spin:

Quote:

---

After closing arguments Tuesday, former President Donald Trump posted on social media to repeat his misleading complaint that Judge Juan Merchan has prevented him from employing a certain defense in the hush money trial against him.
Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social: "THE GREATEST CASE I'VE EVER SEEN FOR RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, AND JUDGE MERCHAN WILL NOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LET ME USE THAT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS RIGGED TRIAL. ANOTHER TERM, ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!" He added in another post on Wednesday morning: "RELIANCE ON COUNSEL (ADVISE OF COUNSEL) NOT ALLOWED BY MERCHAN, A FIRST."
Facts First: Trump's claim remains misleading. He didn't mention, again, that the reason Merchan will not allow Trump's legal team to invoke "advice of counsel" during the trial is that, when Trump was asked before the trial whether he would be using an "advice of counsel" defense, his lawyers told Merchan he would not.
An "advice of counsel" defense typically requires the defendant to waive attorney-client privilege. Trump's lawyers told Merchan before the trial that instead of a "formal" defense of "advice of counsel," Trump wanted to use a different defense in which he would not waive attorney-client privilege but would still "elicit evidence concerning the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment."
Merchan rejected this proposal. He wrote in March: "To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it. The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic." Therefore, Merchan ruled, Trump could not invoke or even suggest a "presence of counsel" defense in the trial.
Last week, during courtroom discussions about Merchan's instructions to the jury, Merchan rejected an attempt by Trump's defense to invoke the "involvement of counsel." Merchan noted he had already made his stance on the proposal clear.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump has claimed that Judge Juan Merchan "is not requiring a unanimous decision on the fake charges against me" as the jury deliberates in the hush money trial against him.
Trump made the claim in a social media post on Wednesday in which he described Merchan's supposed position as "RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN." He was echoing assertions that had been circulating among conservatives after Fox News anchor John Roberts wrote on social media earlier on Wednesday that "Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict."
Facts First: Trump's claim inaccurately depicts what Merchan said.
Merchan told the jury in his instructions on Wednesday that their verdict "must be unanimous" on each of the 34 counts that Trump faces and that, to convict Trump of felony falsification of business records, they have to unanimously agree that he falsified business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime that other crime being a violation of a New York election law.
But Merchan explained that while this New York election law prohibits people from conspiring to use "unlawful means" to promote a candidate's election, jurors don't have to unanimously agree on which particular "unlawful means" Trump may have used. They can find him guilty as long as they unanimously agree that Trump used some unlawful means. Prosecutors provided three theories of what unlawful means Trump used.

Quote:

---

Merchan told the jury: "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: one, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; two, the falsification of other business records; or three, violation of tax laws."

---

---

Gee, none of the other legal pundits following this case, chapter and verse and having the written jury instructions believe that doesn't say they don't require unanimity on the predicate crime.

Nor is it even remotely clear that any of those other crimes were ever presented to the grand jury. Now Bragg created a Statement of Facts after the indictment but that is not properly part of the grand jury's decisions.

What makes this issue all the more disquieting is that Merchan presided over that grand jury and would kno what was and was not presented to them. If these other theories were bootstrapped into trial but never presented to grand jury?

Just because I like to fantasize about things that will never happen (me winning the lottery, me with a 30" waist, etc.)....what if he is acquitted?

The MSM reaction would be glorious. You could just inject that **** right into my veins at that point.

If the jury is still lost - and remember there are 2 lawyers on the jury, one of which is a commercial litigator - that may indicate serious issues at this point.

That too is inexplicable.

Quote:

---

The jury has now had the case for more than 11 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.
Jurors were asked to surrender their phones during deliberations, and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together at the Manhattan courthouse.
They must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both.

---

CNN spin again.

Saw a clip of a former prosecutor and judge on MSNBC who expressed her concerns about Merchn's instructions. Her biggest complaint was that the judge gave them a factual roadmap as to which pieces of evidence the jury needed to pay attention to during their deliberations. And he did so by specific exhibit numbers in many cases. That is impermissible.for the judge to so direct the jury, according to her.

aggiehawg said:

---

Gee, none of the other legal pundits following this case, chapter and verse and having the written jury instructions believe that doesn't say they don't require unanimity on the predicate crime.

Nor is it even remotely clear that any of those other crimes were ever presented to the grand jury. Now Bragg created a Statement of Facts after the indictment but that is not properly part of the grand jury's decisions.

What makes this issue all the more disquieting is that Merchan presided over that grand jury and would kno what was and was not presented to them. If these other theories were bootstrapped into trial but never presented to grand jury?

---

The jury must agree on the predicate crime per the jury instructions. The jury has to unanimously agree that Trump had intent to aid, conceal, or commit a violation of New York Law 17-152.

Page 43 of the jury instructions:

Quote:

---

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW 17-152 PREDICATE

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.

---

New York Law 17-152 says it is a crime for "any two 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 a misdemeanor."

What the jury does not have to agree unanimously on is the "unlawful means."

Page 44 of the jury instructions:

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.

---

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24703577-2024-05-23-jury-instructions-and-charges-final-5-23-24

Quote:

---

The prosecution team has entered the courtroom as has Donald Trump.

The jury has been deliberating for more than 11 hours at this point.

---

Another question? Or dismissing the jury for the day?

The jury doesn't have to agree on the predicate crime.

Only 4 have to agree on the three. That's certainly not agreement.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

The jury has now had the case for more than 11 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.
Jurors were asked to surrender their phones during deliberations, and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together at the Manhattan courthouse.
They must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both.

---

CNN spin again.

Saw a clip of a former prosecutor and judge on MSNBC who expressed her concerns about Merchn's instructions. Her biggest complaint was that the judge gave them a factual roadmap as to which pieces of evidence the jury needed to pay attention to during their deliberations. And he did so by specific exhibit numbers in many cases. That is impermissible.for the judge to so direct the jury, according to her.

---

The Rittenhouse jury deliberated for 24 hours over 4 days before coming to a verdict. And that was a much more straight forward case than this convoluted mess.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he's going to excuse the jury at 4:30 p.m. ET today.

---

Cool. That means they are not close to reaching a verdict yet.

---

Looking more and more like hung. Correct?

They might drag this bad boy out till Friday afternoon.

Why not?

None of them jurors wanna go in to the office on Friday and deal with a bombed out email inbox. They gon let it ride.

Maybe have em a special lunch on Friday, everybody say goodbye and roll into the weekend.

aginlakeway said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he's going to excuse the jury at 4:30 p.m. ET today.

---

Cool. That means they are not close to reaching a verdict yet.

---

Looking more and more like hung. Correct?

---

The longer deliberations take, the more likely a hung jury will result, but you never know.

Quote:

---

The Rittenhouse jury deliberated for 24 hours over 4 days before coming to a verdict. And that was a much more straight forward case than this convoluted mess.

---

My contention is that the jury in Rittenhouse came to a pretty quick verdict and then played cards for a long time because of the angry mobs outside of the courthouse.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he's going to excuse the jury at 4:30 p.m. ET today.

---

Cool. That means they are not close to reaching a verdict yet.

---

The judge would have no idea whether they are close or not.

aginlakeway said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he's going to excuse the jury at 4:30 p.m. ET today.

---

Cool. That means they are not close to reaching a verdict yet.

---

Looking more and more like hung. Correct?

---

Still too soon. We'll see what happens tomorrow.

Quote:

---

Merchan says he asked the parties to come in now so he could tell them that he's going to send the jury home for the day.

He's now stepped off the bench, and says he'll be back in a few minutes.

---

Quote:

---

Donald Trump is saying "Thank you" to the court staff in the well and pointing to them.
Trump's demeanor is perhaps the most relaxed it's been inside the courtroom since jury selection, as he's leaning back chatting with attorney Todd Blanche and thanking various staff.
Trump and Blanche have been chatting on and off for the past few minutes, with both of them smiling and laughing at points. A couple times when he and Blanche stopped talking, Trump would reach out and lightly swat Blanche's arm to get his attention and then they'd start talking again.

---

If the jury is going to be hung, it's going to take much longer. If a jury is hung, don't they have to inform the court that they're hung, and then usually the judge says go back and deliberate more?

This trial reminds me of the final episode of Seinfeld...smh

rgag12 said:

---

If the jury is going to be hung, it's going to take much longer. If a jury is hung, don't they have to inform the court that they're hung, and then usually the judge says go back and deliberate more?

---

Yes, the jury would say they have reached an impasse and the judge would almost certainly give what's called an Allen Instruction or Allen Charge, and tell them go back and try again.