Waited for the right time to tweet this. That time has come. pic.twitter.com/fOshkV0PR3
— Sgt Pepper (@MzSgtPepper) May 29, 2024
tequila4kapp said:What I think is that many of these things individually are innocuous. So the Defense goes 1st? Unusual, but whatever, it is a legal curiosity. And it is mostly harmless because in 99.9999% of criminal cases the charged offenses are completely contained within the Indictment. Same with the way misdemeanors are extended by another felony - perhaps irregular but not necessarily problematic. But when you start adding stuff up, like:concordtom said:What if that's simply the way the law works in NY?tequila4kapp said:THIS IS INSANITY.bear2034 said:
Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?
On top of that, the defense only learned what the 3 alleged felonies were at the Prosecution's closing statement, which is after the defense's closing thanks to a unique feature of NY law where the defense goes first. That means not only were they not put on notice they also never had a direct chance to refute the charges.
Or, do you just think it's unfair, rigged?
- the felonies don't have to be stated in the indictment
- the felonies never have to be stated during trial
- the defendant didn't have to be charged or convicted of those felonies, just have the 'intent' to commit them
- the prosecutor only announces what the felonies are at closing, after the defense cannot speak again
- the judge rules there doesn't have to be a unanimous decision from the jury about which felonies the defendant intent to commit
It really seems unconstitutional to me, at least.
bearister said:
This is a musical salute to tRump for being too much of a chickensh@it to testify in his own defense.
The instrument being played is one of those squeaking chickens that tRump had his Secret Service detail confiscate from the audience during his teleprompter reading at the Libertarian Convention:Waited for the right time to tweet this. That time has come. pic.twitter.com/fOshkV0PR3
— Sgt Pepper (@MzSgtPepper) May 29, 2024
oski003 said:concordtom said:What if 3 people felt his crime was being born, 3 for being an ass hole, 3 for having a ridiculous hairdo, 2 that think he has a small mushroom between his pants, and 1 who think it's a crime he's still alive - what then?tequila4kapp said:Because other people might not be following along... the judge is saying the 12 jurors do not have to agree on which of the 3 alleged felonies Trump intended to commit. 4 can think he intended election law violations, 4 can think he violated tax law and 4 can think Trump intended book keeping fraud. They do not have to agree on the underlying felony.bear2034 said:
Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?
I get the feeling you don't need Viagra this week.
tequila4kapp said:That does not appear to be on point. The cited case appears to involve two concurrent theories offered in support of a murder 1 conviction. The Trump case gets a little circular, but Bragg is required to prove intent on a felony, at least as an element of the charged offense and possibly as a predicate for the misdemeanor charges not expiring on SOL.WalterSobchak said:People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)Quote:
The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.
When do you think the Democrat jury in Democrats' NYC show trial will vote to convict?
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) May 29, 2024
AunBear89 said:oski003 said:
I get the feeling you don't need Viagra this week.
I understand: your wife flushed yours down the toilet rather than being serially abused by your insignificant equipment.
I'm sure, if you ask nicely, Tom will let you have some of his.
bearister said:
This is a musical salute to tRump for being too much of a chickensh@it to testify in his own defense.
The instrument being played is one of those squeaking chickens that tRump had his Secret Service detail confiscate from the audience during his teleprompter reading at the Libertarian Convention:
*Even Matt Taibbi's perma-grin would transform to a giggle viewing that.
oski003 said:concordtom said:What if 3 people felt his crime was being born, 3 for being an ass hole, 3 for having a ridiculous hairdo, 2 that think he has a small mushroom between his pants, and 1 who think it's a crime he's still alive - what then?tequila4kapp said:Because other people might not be following along... the judge is saying the 12 jurors do not have to agree on which of the 3 alleged felonies Trump intended to commit. 4 can think he intended election law violations, 4 can think he violated tax law and 4 can think Trump intended book keeping fraud. They do not have to agree on the underlying felony.bear2034 said:
Jurors don't have to unanimously agree and Judge Merchan is allowing the jurors to choose one of the three predicate crimes. So what is that, 99.6% chance of conviction?
I get the feeling you don't need Viagra this week.
I fully realize how this all must read to everyone. But much like the Abortion thread, my contributions in the thread are almost entirely a pseudo (feeble?) intellectual exercise in law / society and not about Trump.concordtom said:
Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.
My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!
Note, that has nothing to do with Trump and is naturally inconsistent with where I fall on the political spectrum (speaking of which, friendly point of order that I am proudly NOT a Republican. I have been "unaffiliated" for many many moons and I see no scenario where I go back.) I would be resorting to philosophy too if Trump were to win.tequila4kapp said:I fully realize how this all must read to everyone. But much like the Abortion thread, my contributions in the thread are almost entirely a pseudo (feeble?) intellectual exercise in law / society and not about Trump.concordtom said:
Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.
My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!
My time in law school (I am not a lawyer) imbued in me fairly deep feelings about the presumption of innocence, fairness to the accused at trial, power of the state, etc. My dad used to go crazy when I would tell him I easily could have been a criminal defense attorney. Call it a "To Kill a Mockingbird" syndrome
AunBear89 said:
You brought up your little blue friend, clown. And the next time you contribute anything substantive to a topic will be the first.
TL;dr: I could not care less about you nor your opinions.
I'm not satisfied.dajo9 said:
I don't gave a prediction for this case. I have no idea. We are entitled to a trial by injury and Trump is having his day in court. If he wins I won't say it was a fraud. If he loses I won't say it was a fraud. If 1 juror let's him walk - then he walks. The right would make that juror out to be a hero. That would be a shame.
What's happening in NYC should make us proud as Americans. Nobody is above the law and we are all entitled to a trial by jury. What is happening in Florida with Judge Cannon and in Georgia are a travesty. A disgrace to all Americans.
concordtom said:I'm not satisfied.dajo9 said:
I don't gave a prediction for this case. I have no idea. We are entitled to a trial by injury and Trump is having his day in court. If he wins I won't say it was a fraud. If he loses I won't say it was a fraud. If 1 juror let's him walk - then he walks. The right would make that juror out to be a hero. That would be a shame.
What's happening in NYC should make us proud as Americans. Nobody is above the law and we are all entitled to a trial by jury. What is happening in Florida with Judge Cannon and in Georgia are a travesty. A disgrace to all Americans.
The case should be broadcast. It's nearly impossible for the average person to understand what has occured.
Further, we are going to rely on a unanimous decision by 12 rando-people to tell us what happened here?
Like, I guess I could accept that if the case wasn't so politically charged such that someone on either side is likely to take an absolutist opinion of things and cause a Hung Jury. But it IS so charged, so we aren't going to get a fair verdict - if 1 of the 12 sticks their foot in the political mud, then the case isn't being tried, the politics of it is. So, the result will be unsatisfactory.
This is not just any case. This case could, in a way, determine the future of the united states, and the world!
If he skates by and gets re-elected, all hell could break loose.
If he is found guilty, it might be enough to make him go away.
Biden is no great consolation prize - there are a number of things I'll be left wanting on, but it will be great to avoid disaster.
concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:That does not appear to be on point. The cited case appears to involve two concurrent theories offered in support of a murder 1 conviction. The Trump case gets a little circular, but Bragg is required to prove intent on a felony, at least as an element of the charged offense and possibly as a predicate for the misdemeanor charges not expiring on SOL.WalterSobchak said:People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)Quote:
The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.
Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.
My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!
82gradDLSdad said:concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:That does not appear to be on point. The cited case appears to involve two concurrent theories offered in support of a murder 1 conviction. The Trump case gets a little circular, but Bragg is required to prove intent on a felony, at least as an element of the charged offense and possibly as a predicate for the misdemeanor charges not expiring on SOL.WalterSobchak said:People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)Quote:
The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.
Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.
My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!
I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.
I did some digging in response to this post. I stumbled upon the linked document, which appears to include the order on Trump's motion to dismiss: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdfbearister said:
"There's a false narrative circulating that the Trump jury need not be unanimous in their finding of guilt.
Here is the actual instruction:
First, the jury must find unanimously that Trump knowingly caused a business record to be falsified.
Second, the jury must find unanimously that Trump intended to defraud by concealing a conspiracy to promote his election as president by "unlawful means."
Third the jurors must find at least one of several offered "unlawful means," but they need not be unanimous on which one. That's because this is not an element of the offense, but a manner and means of committing it. This instruction is consistent with the law and with due process."
-Barbara McQuade
tequila4kapp said:I did some digging in response to this post. I stumbled upon the linked document, which appears to include the order on Trump's motion to dismiss: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People-v-DonaldTrump2-15-24Decision.pdfbearister said:
"There's a false narrative circulating that the Trump jury need not be unanimous in their finding of guilt.
Here is the actual instruction:
First, the jury must find unanimously that Trump knowingly caused a business record to be falsified.
Second, the jury must find unanimously that Trump intended to defraud by concealing a conspiracy to promote his election as president by "unlawful means."
Third the jurors must find at least one of several offered "unlawful means," but they need not be unanimous on which one. That's because this is not an element of the offense, but a manner and means of committing it. This instruction is consistent with the law and with due process."
-Barbara McQuade
See page ".2 OTHER CRIMES", page 11. The prosecution's 4 theories for other crimes are explicitly discussed. Merchan agreed that 1 of them was insufficient; 3 are deemed sufficient. Conclusion: Trump was put on notice about the other crimes.
But the state is required to prove intent to commit that other crime (the unlawful means). Intent is an element. They are now allowed to convict without agreeing on Trump's intent re the other offense. The instructions effectively insert an operator "any" before the the words "unlawful means."bearister said:
In the trial, like the election, Trump's base is inoculated against loss
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/29/trump-verdict-republican-base/
"Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict," Fox News's John Roberts wrote on social media." "4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict."
As people immediately pointed out, this is false. The 34 felony charges Trump faces allege that he falsified business records (or caused them to be falsified) to cover up another crime; specifically, conspiracy to influence an election by unlawful means. Merchan's point wasn't that unanimity wasn't needed to convict Trump; it is. His point was that jurors didn't need to agree on the unlawful means used in that conspiracy to determine that Trump attempted to cover up the conspiracy. Four of them could think the unlawful means was falsifying other documents or four might think it was violating federal election law. It didn't matter."
tequila4kapp said:
concordtom said:82gradDLSdad said:concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:That does not appear to be on point. The cited case appears to involve two concurrent theories offered in support of a murder 1 conviction. The Trump case gets a little circular, but Bragg is required to prove intent on a felony, at least as an element of the charged offense and possibly as a predicate for the misdemeanor charges not expiring on SOL.WalterSobchak said:People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)Quote:
The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.
Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.
My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!
I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.
Yes. I was referring to you.
I said you disapprove of trump - I got that right.
But I believe you also are having a hard time with the skewering of Trump; am I wrong?
82gradDLSdad said:concordtom said:82gradDLSdad said:concordtom said:tequila4kapp said:That does not appear to be on point. The cited case appears to involve two concurrent theories offered in support of a murder 1 conviction. The Trump case gets a little circular, but Bragg is required to prove intent on a felony, at least as an element of the charged offense and possibly as a predicate for the misdemeanor charges not expiring on SOL.WalterSobchak said:People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 406 (N.Y. 2004)Quote:
The question here is whether due process requires that [one] theory be considered by the jury apart from [another] theory, and that the jury be unanimous on one theory or the other, even though the Legislature expressly intended that the two coexist in the same subparagraph of the statute. We conclude it does not.
Kapp,
I've enjoyed your posts on the sports forums for a looooong time now.
But this is truly kinda fun watching you semi-meltdown (along with DLS) over this.
Both of you guys disapprove of Trump not insignificantly, but your Republican identity is in heavy conflict with your leader's demise.
My only advice would be to just let it go, let him go. Cleanse yourself of the filth that poisons your mind!!
I hope you're not referring to me. (there is another DLS name on here so maybe I got this wrong). But I voted for Biden in 2020!! My only dem vote in my short voting life. Geez.
Yes. I was referring to you.
I said you disapprove of trump - I got that right.
But I believe you also are having a hard time with the skewering of Trump; am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong. He is horrible. The fact that he has a chance of being elected shows how ****ed up we are. And I don't mean just the Republicans who will vote for him.
