When it comes to Trump, I'm hopefully optimistic he will be acquitted or at least a mistrial. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in people, but the whole affair is so insanely false and unjust, even New Yorkers can see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The quicker the verdict comes back, the more likely we can assume that it will be guilty.

That's generally not true. Quicker verdicts in a criminal case, where there are multiple counts, usually mean Not Guilty.

That's because for each count, the jury needs to agree on foundational elements for each alleged crimes before it answers on guilt or innocence. It will take a lot of time to go through all 34 counts and agree on the necessary elements.

If you remember from the OJ trial, defense attorney Carl Douglass figured how long it would take to fill out the jury forms for guilt and it would have much taken much longer. When they announced they'd arrived at a quick decision, he knew OJ was walking. Not enough time.

Jury forms are kind of like filling out forms in general. "If you answer Yes to question No.1, go to question 2 and follow the instructions. If you answer No to question 1, go to the bottom of the form and check the box Not Guilty and sign the form."


The jury will have to do this 34 times.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
The quicker the verdict comes back, the more likely we can assume that it will be guilty.

That's generally not true. Quicker verdicts in a criminal case, where there are multiple counts, usually mean Not Guilty.

For most cases, sure. But I believe it's the opposite for this one. If this Jury actually intends to take these charges seriously, how can they come back with anything but not guilty?

But I'm just a layman. I had forgotten there are actually 34 counts here. You're likely right.

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
When it comes to Trump, I'm hopefully optimistic he will be acquitted or at least a mistrial. Maybe I'm placing too much faith in people, but the whole affair is so insanely false and unjust, even New Yorkers can see it.

I'm hopefully optimistic as well... at least for a mistrial. I don't think he will be acquitted because I don't think the jury will all agree. Everyone knows this is a political trial, which surely affects the jurors. I just hope a few are strong enough to do the right thing.

quote:

Originally posted by sse:
i heard that there are two lawyers on the jury.
<snip>

I doubted that any lawyers would be empaneled, let alone two of ‘em, but it appears that you’re correct:

https://www.politico.com/news/...ury-lawyers-00152839

Both are male corporate lawyers. Color me surprised. Lawyers are usually excused in the jury selection process.

having two lawyers may be their 'get out of jail' card

In my state lawyers are permitted to be on a jury, rule change decades ago, but can get weeded out by the judge or attorneys.

Most lay people have no idea how any of this works, so the attorneys could give some insight on how ridiculous the case is, if they have some background on it.

More importantly, attorneys should be able to explain how ridiculous the jury instructions are, which is unavoidable given the convoluted charges. But, the attorneys could be also be political hacks just like anyone else.

As far as elapsed time of deliberations, either outcome could be quick or after a long time. The OJ verdict was reached within just a few hours, which was surprising given the lengthy trial and evidence. In that case the jurors had their minds made up before the trial started, probably didn't understand much of the evidence, so they didn't care.

quote:

That's because for each count, the jury needs to agree on foundational elements for each alleged crimes before it answers on guilt or innocence. It will take a lot of time to go through all 34 counts and agree on the necessary elements.

Based on the jury instructions I'm seeing online, it doesn't sound like that's part of the what's happening here, we shall see.

ETA:

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/s.../1795829624502681688

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

That's because for each count, the jury needs to agree on foundational elements for each alleged crimes before it answers on guilt or innocence. It will take a lot of time to go through all 34 counts and agree on the necessary elements.

Based on the jury instructions I'm seeing online, it doesn't sound like that's part of the what's happening here, we shall see.

ETA:

https://x.com/JonathanTurley/s.../1795829624502681688

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&lang=en&theme=&id=1795829624502681688" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 499px; display: block; border: none; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-image: url('https://codejanitor.net/embeds/images/bgmessage.png'); background-position: 50% 85px; background-size: 200px; overflow: hidden;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Wow...

Yeah, this is quite the show. All pretense of unbiased and fair is gone.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Wow...

Yeah, this is quite the show. All pretense of unbiased and fair is gone.

In case you missed it, if you've been watching/listening to whats been going on in this trial... That pretense went out the window a LONG time ago. This "judge" is as biased as they come, can't see how anyone paying attention wouldn't have noticed.

I believe I mentioned jury instructions at least a week+ ago.

I have been paying very good attention but now that the judge has given the jury instructions, that's not something we've heard from the trial observers, until they were read today.

Kind of odd that the jury instructions weren't given to them to take. I guess the judge is asking them to do it from memory and then send him questions as necessary. Just bizarre.

I wonder if the jury votes 4-4-4 in the underlying federal crimes has to say as individuals, "I found him guilty of federal crime #1 but not guilty of #2 and 3." According to this judge, so long as the total ends of with 12 guilty findings in a mix and match, that's good enough for a unanimous determination.


In theory, you could have one person finding him guilty of the #1 crime and that's all it takes so long as there are 11 guilty findings on the other two. No single jury in any court can make the sole decision of guilt without the other jurors also having their say in the conviction.

This judge is truly out of control and doing some things that will be reversed on appeal.

quote:

In theory, you could have one person finding him guilty of the #1 crime and that's all it takes so long as there are 11 guilty findings on the other two. No single jury in any court can make the sole decision of guilt without the other jurors also having their say in the conviction.

Also, directly contradicts the recent USSC ruling of Ramos vs Louisiana regarding state trials and unanimous juries. Regardless of the outcome, Joe Biden and his lawfare has forever tarnished the United States. I didn’t think it could sink lower than the 2020 election, yet here we are!!! History will not look kindly on this moment.

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfr...dkt_nbr=0105023yancp

Report: One Juror Seems to Agree With Defense

A hung jury in former President Donald Trump's New York criminal trial appears to be a real possibility.

Only one skeptical juror is needed to create a hung jury that would result in a mistrial.

Trump's legal team has focused on one juror who may prevent a guilty verdict, The Bulwark's Marc Caputo reported.

"There are eight people on that jury who definitely hate Trump. If there's one person who doesn't, it's [this] juror," one court attendee told Caputo.

Caputo further described the juror.

"As the trial has progressed since April 15, these sources relate, this juror has appeared to nod along in seeming accordance with the defense at times," Caputo wrote. "On other occasions, the juror has seemingly reacted favorably to and made eye contact with Trump's congressional surrogates who began joining him in court in recent weeks."

The reporter added that the juror "lit up" when Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, and some of Trump's other high-profile supporters appeared at the courthouse.

The former president's allies are not the only people who have focused on the juror.

"There's one juror that people are worried about and I share the worry," Harry Litman, a Democrat former Justice Department official, wrote Tuesday on X. "Can't identify her or him per judge's orders but seems less engaged and slightly irritable."

Still, trying to predict how jury's will vote is tricky.

"You just never know what people are thinking or what they're gonna do," one Trump insider said, The Bulwark reported. "Yeah, the [juror] looks friendly. But maybe [the juror is] just doing that to [expletive] with us before they vote to convict."

Jury deliberations are expected to begin Wednesday after the panel receives instructions from the judge on the law governing the case and what they can take into account in evaluating the former president's guilt or innocence.

Trump faces 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, charges which are punishable by up to four years in prison. He has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I have been paying very good attention but now that the judge has given the jury instructions, that's not something we've heard from the trial observers, until they were read today.

I'm not sure which observers you've heard from, obviously it was confirmed today, but here was a LOT of talk last week on exactly this, when the prosecution and defense attorneys got together on it last Thursday or Friday.

Also, the judge has been pretty obvious in his leanings toward testimony and evidentiary rulings.
He disallowed almost all of the Brad Smith(former head of the FEC) FEC testimony, essentially preventing him from giving his opinion as to whether Trumps payments would have been illegal had the money come from campaign funds instead of personal funds.

Smith would have been able to tell the jury it would have been a campaign finance law violation had the campaign payed for it instead. He and many have openly stated that outside the trial. That testimony was NOT allowed. Instead, the defense was stuck asking him for "definitions", which I'm more than confident put the jurors to sleep...

He also restricted and nullified a lot of Robert Costello's (Cohen's former attorney) testimony.

quote:

"There are eight people on that jury who definitely hate Trump. If there's one person who doesn't, it's [this] juror," one court attendee told Caputo.

In New York, eight people on that jury who definitely hate Trump should not be a surprise.
Still, this is good news. It only takes one.

quote:

Originally posted by stoic-one:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
I have been paying very good attention but now that the judge has given the jury instructions, that's not something we've heard from the trial observers, until they were read today.

I'm not sure which observers you've heard from, obviously it was confirmed today, but here was a LOT of talk last week on exactly this, when the prosecution and defense attorneys got together on it last Thursday or Friday.

Also, the judge has been pretty obvious in his leanings toward testimony and evidentiary rulings.
He disallowed almost all of the Brad Smith(former head of the FEC) FEC testimony, essentially preventing him from giving his opinion as to whether Trumps payments would have been illegal had the money come from campaign funds instead of personal funds.

Smith would have been able to tell the jury it would have been a campaign finance law violation had the campaign payed for it instead. He and many have openly stated that outside the trial. That testimony was NOT allowed. Instead, the defense was stuck asking him for "definitions", which I'm more than confident put the jurors to sleep...

He also restricted and nullified a lot of Robert Costello's (Cohen's former attorney) testimony.

There are plenty of grounds for a meritorious appeal if he's convicted.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:

Only one skeptical juror is needed to create a hung jury that would result in a mistrial.

I have been empaneled on exactly one jury, and it was a criminal trial. The case seemed as straight forward, open and shut as I could imagine any real case being. During selection, I formed my opinions of my fellow jurors, predicting which ones would be tough, which ones would be squishy, etc. Good thing I am not paid for reading jurors, three people I expected to be lenient were the most hard core. Some I thought would be easily persuaded dug their heels in. There were 3 charges, we convicted on the two that might have held some element of "reasonable doubt," and acquitted on the charge that was clear as night and day. Even the judge was bewildered by our result.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
There are plenty of grounds for a meritorious appeal if he's convicted.

Uh huh, great?
Wait for all the Dems and the press, mostly the same thing, to start using the word "convicted" in damn every sentence. Overturned on appeal, marvy...

Still have my fingers crossed for a hung jury, but there's no denying the "trial" is a rigged shit-show kangaroo court.

Edit:

But wait, it gets even better, IANAL but I've never heard of this before.

https://x.com/AndrewHGiuliani/.../1795863625837506984



I'm pretty sure that all but eliminated the chance a single juror can trigger a hung jury.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
<snip>
There are plenty of grounds for a meritorious appeal if he's convicted.

Since a Not Guilty verdict is very unlikely from this judge-whipped jury, a conviction is better for us. A non-decision could prolong the fabricated case for an indeterminate period.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
<snip>
There are plenty of grounds for a meritorious appeal if he's convicted.

Since a Not Guilty verdict is very unlikely from this judge-whipped jury, a conviction is better for us. A non-decision could prolong the fabricated case for an indeterminate period.

No, fuck that. A guilty verdict isn't a death knell like the democrats think, but a hung jury is far better.