Quote:

---

Can you explain, like I'm not an attorney, why the govt is able to charge and try for multiple different crimes in one instance? Why is the govt allowed to accuse him of killing the guy under two different laws? He only killed the guy once, why isn't the government required to pick their battle?

---

It is called "lesser included offenses" and have different elements required for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Think about, for instance, a gun charge being added to a murder charge. Seems an afterthought but it is much easier to prove. Either the weapon was legally owned or not.

Because the crimes have different elementsin this case, different mental states (intentionally , knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence). They are called "lesser included crimes."

Tango.Mike said:

---

Seems like absolute bs to me. I dislike the rider charges like a weapons charge, but this kind seems even worse. Derek Chauvin was charged with murder 1, murder 2, murder 3, man 1, man 2, accidental man, left handed murder, etc.

Seems to me as a non-attorney that the whole thing is fishing for convictions. Pick your charge. Either he killed the guy intentionally or accidentally. You can't accuse him of "well he killed him, so let's cover any and all possibilities including death by watching Japanese anime"

---

While I tend to agree that allowing those lesser charges more often than not leads to overcharging by DAs with an agenda (mostly to get reelected) but the law does allow for it.

While the lawyer in me screams at this explanation, it may be easier to use bad math.


Man dies. In order to convict, DA must achieve certain points

Murder 1 - 10 pts
Murder 2 - 8 pts
Manslaughter - 6 pts
Negligent Homicide - 4 pts
Assault/Battery (different states, different definitions) - 2 pts


If you can prove all 10 points, you could convict on each part.

DA makes a decision when charging on what the point total they think they can get. The points are scored by achieving different requirements of the criminal act. More points for an intentional action, and way less points for a negligent action.

The same criminal result allows the DA to charge all of the lesser included actions on the point scale (but they don't always do that for reasons we won't address here).

DA is trying to score 6 points, but leaving the jury room to say that only 4 or 5 points were scored. Judge likely instructed the jury to say "yes, 6+ points" or "no" before being allowed to consider if 4 was scored.

If you're ever on a criminal Jury, put yourself in the shoes of the defendant before agreeing to anything remotely appearing to be a compromise, because a hung jury gives the defense a ton more leverage when actually coming to a real compromise, and not something unfair.

Guess that mystery is solved.

...The question is whether the court will instruct the jury to consider the second charge of the criminal negligence charge. The judge expressed doubt over whether, in the absence of a unanimous verdict on the first charge, he could tell them to move on to the second charge...

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 6, 2024

That makes it sound like it's not really a lesser included. I'm a little confused on that.

SwigAg11 said:

---

That makes it sound like it's not really a lesser included. I'm a little confused on that.

---

I am a little confused as well by the position of the judge. He decides what will go into the jury instructions. I can certainly see where the jury would be confused.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

That makes it sound like it's not really a lesser included. I'm a little confused on that.

---

I am a little confused as well by the position of the judge. He decides what will go into the jury instructions. I can certainly see where the jury would be confused.

---

Would that indicate that Bragg screwed up with the initial filing of the charges?
Did he charge both equally and not as "lesser included?"

We know Bragg is a moron, would this be par for the course?

Im a geologist, not a lawyer....

...Many of us cannot see how this case could have produced a conviction with the layers of reasonable doubt in the evidence. The absence of clear causation makes a conviction difficult to justify in such a case. Indeed, it makes it difficult to see why the case was brought.

— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) December 6, 2024

So the people of NYC are telling the world if someone attacks you here no one is allowed to help you.

I would advise anyone going to NYC while there to never help anyone in that city no matter what. Don't even try to give someone CPR or Mouth to Mouth because you are very possibly going to be arrested or at least sued.

What a F@#$ed up city.

Sadly the people of NYC voted for this system and support it.

Can someone explain the Allen charge. Something about peer pressure or something. A little confused on how that is fair, or if I am misinterpreting something.

Quote:

---

When jurors cannot agree on a verdict and report this to a judge, the judge may issue further instruction to them to encourage those in the minority to reconsider their position. These instructions are known as an Allen charge or, more casually, as a dynamite charge.

The Allen charge is named for the United States Supreme Court case Allen v. United States (1896) in which the Court approved such instructions in federal cases.
Critics of the Allen charge have described it among other ways as:

• "laden with deception" and "meant to browbeat the jury into submission"
• "a subtle means of jury 'coercion'"
• imposing an "explicit or implicit deadline" that "can impede quality decision-making and encourage jurors to give in to the social pressure of the majority"

The ruling is not binding on the states, and it is still a matter of significant controversy. Consequently, some states have banned such charges to the jury. In some states, however, similar jury instructions are used. They may be named for key cases decided in their state courts.

While they may sound quite forceful, intimidating, or even strongly imply that a juror must or should change their verdict, Allen charges do not require jurors to change their votes or reach a verdict. If you conscientiously believe your vote is just, you should NOT change it for the sake of delivering a verdict.

---

LINK

I would put up billboards stating, "If you are a woman or an elderly person and are being attacked on the subway, and the big burly men around you stand there and watch, remember your DA and prosecutors and possibly YOUR votes have made this happen. You are on your own and good luck to you."

On another note, since I think Adams has leaned a bit into defending Penny, could he pull a '2024' and pardon him if he's convicted? I think this would be a state crime but not sure what their pardon rules are up there, probably whatever doesn't make sense.

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

I would put up billboards stating, "If you are a woman or an elderly person and are being attacked on the subway, and the big burly men around you stand there and watch, remember your DA and prosecutors and possibly YOUR votes have made this happen. You are on your own and good luck to you."


On another note, since I think Adams has leaned a bit into defending Penny, could he pull a '2024' and pardon him if he's convicted? I think this would be a state crime but not sure what their pardon rules are up there, probably whatever doesn't make sense.

---

Probably can only be done by the governor, and I have nothing nice to say about Hochul.

SwigAg11 said:

---

Jack Squat 83 said:

---

I would put up billboards stating, "If you are a woman or an elderly person and are being attacked on the subway, and the big burly men around you stand there and watch, remember your DA and prosecutors and possibly YOUR votes have made this happen. You are on your own and good luck to you."


On another note, since I think Adams has leaned a bit into defending Penny, could he pull a '2024' and pardon him if he's convicted? I think this would be a state crime but not sure what their pardon rules are up there, probably whatever doesn't make sense.

---

Probably can only be done by the governor, and I have nothing nice to say about Hochul.

---

Damn I need more coffee, what an idiot, of course he's only the mayor. Those Dems all kind of blend in together in my head.

Quote:

---

On another note, since I think Adams has leaned a bit into defending Penny, could he pull a '2024' and pardon him if he's convicted? I think this would be a state crime but not sure what their pardon rules are up there, probably whatever doesn't make sense.

---

Nope. As Mayor, he ain't got jack squat powers to pardon...

Is there anywhere that someone can donate a pallet of bricks and diesel fuel and torches when Perry is railroaded and found guilty because of "social justice"?
Asking for myself. I'd love to see that stupid city burn to the ground

This is why there is always a compromise judgement.

They're going to hold that jury...as hostages.

4stringAg said:

---

Hopefully there are some people that will resist the pressure to convict if they feel strongly. Better still, hopefully the deadlock is heavily in favor of not guilty and there is only a small group of people wanting to convict.

I don't have a lot of faith in juries these days particularly in a place like Manhattan.

---

I worked in that city for a little over 30 years, and I have even less faith than you. I am absolutely dumbfounded that they haven't come back with a not guilty verdict, even considering the fools in that jury pool.

They deserve the ****hole city they are headed for. If somebody has to be a victim of random looneybird violence, may it be the prosecution or a juror voting guilty. And may all bystanders quietly watch it go down and do nothing. They have confirmed that is their preferred choice

Love it.