Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation

[Belsnickel]

So, we are all aware by now that Trump has been found guilty by a jury of his peers on 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, a Class E felony under NY penal code 175.10. Of course, certain segments of the media have been perpetuating false claims about all of this and I have seen a lot of it repeated in this forum, so I wanted to do a little "clearing the air," so to speak.

1. "Falsifying Business Records has never been charged as a felony before." - This is incorrect. There have been quite a few instances where this charge has received the "bump up" to being a felony. (Source)

2. "Bragg was using a federal crime as the reason to make the charges felonies." - This is incorrect. The crime that the Manhattan DA office used as the predicate was NY election law 17-152. (Source)

3. "The jury did not have to be unanimous in the verdict." - This is incorrect. The jury had to be unanimous on each of the 34 counts, and they had to be unanimous not only that Trump falsified the business records, but also that it was done with the intent to commit or conceal violations of 17-152. However, this is where they did not have to be unanimous:

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.

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: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

So, it is the tertiary level in which they need not have been unanimous. First, unanimous that he falsified business records. Second, unanimous that it was done with the intent to commit or conceal the crime of 17-152. Third, not unanimous on what the unlawful means were that were being utilized to violate section 17-152. So why not unanimous for that? Because Trump was not being charged with 17-152. The actual crime did not have to be committed for it to trigger the bump-up:

Quote:For the crime of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, the intent to defraud must include an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed.

(Source)

4. "It was an unfair trial because they couldn't call the witnesses they wanted to." - This is incorrect. Trump's defense team held the same subpoena power as the DA did during this case. So for a witness like Weisselberg, if they wanted him on the stand they could have made it happen. Trump himself was not prohibited from testifying as the gag order had nothing to do with that. There was one witness, I cannot recall which one, who the defense wanted to call but did not. It was not, however, because the judge refused to allow the witness. The reason the witness was not called was because Merchan said they they could only testify to items relevant to the case. The witness was not valuable to them in that way and as a result they were not called. (Source)

5. "But what about Stormy Daniels' testimony that wasn't entirely relevant and potentially prejudicial?" - A very good question. Because the defense team had continued with the denial that the encounter ever happened, it opened the door for the relevancy of her testimony. Had Trump's side never mentioned that in their opening, we would not have seen Daniels on the stand. In addition, Trump's defense team did not object to much of her testimony while it was going on. There was even a point where Merchan himself objected because he thought it went too far. This is why the mistrial motion following her testimony was denied. You must object in the moment to things like that. Even if overruled, it allows you an avenue for appeal. (Source)

6. "The jury was always going to be in the bag against Trump." - Both the defense and the prosecution had to agree to these jurors. Jury selection, for those that may not know, is a very tedious process and Merchan was thorough in the way he conducted it, from all accounts. No side was given preferential treatment in the process. In addition, just based on statistics, there would have been at least one person sympathetic to Trump on that jury.

7. "This is why there should have been a venue change; Manhattan is a liberal enclave." - Well, venue changes don't happen when it comes to local courts. The crimes were committed in Manhattan, so they have the jurisdiction. It isn't like federal court where it can move around a bit more.

If I think of others, I will add them. I am just tired of seeing some of the same old things being dragged out time and time again. Also, if you are going to add something to this list yourself, please make sure to source it. I know I didn't for the last two because these are just common knowledge types of things. We all know there are some here that will continue to deny no matter what is provided, but for those reasonable folks who may just be getting bad information it would be good to have this as a place for rational discussion about the trial.

[CKwi88]

[img]<a href=[/img]

[Belsnickel]

Adding to my point 3: During the charges conference, Trump's defense team agreed and acknowledged that the portion of the jury instructions regarding unanimity was the law and they were looking for an exception:

Quote:MR. BOVE: That is the heart of the dispute in these two competing proposals, is whether the jury should be required to find unanimously which of the 17-152 unlawful means are at issue.

We understand the law that's been cited here.

We think your Honor has some discretion.

This is, obviously, an extraordinarily important case.

We do have a motion pending from yesterday, still.

Assuming this is going to go to the jury, in the way that these statutes are being used in this case -- which there's not much, if any, precedent for -- we submit that the jury should be required to make very specific findings, as specific as Your Honor's discretion would permit, so it's very clear what happened at this trial.

THE COURT: Do you agree, that's not ordinarily required?

MR. BOVE: Certainly.

(Source, Page 109)

This means that this issue will fall flat on appeal.

[Belsnickel]

8. "Trump didn't even know what he was being charged with."  - I don't have a transcript or direct source for this; I will continue looking. However, during an arraignment for charges filed against someone, not only does the defendant enter a plea, they are asked if they understand the charges filed against them. Trump was asked this question in court, under oath, and answered in the affirmative.

Edit: I have found the transcript and learned this is not a part of the process in New York. However, Trump's legal team was provided with the indictment and it is their role to ensure Trump understands the charges against him. (Source)

[Belsnickel]

9. "The July 11th sentencing date is election interference."  - Following the verdict, Blanche requested a sentencing date in mid-to-late July. Steinglass stated the normal timeframe is six weeks, to they had no objection. So, Merchan set the date for July 11th, towards the middle of July. (Source)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

What's not on there. The judge violated judicial rules by donating to Biden and another Democratic organization. I know the amount was minimal, but one need only ask if the same crowd who have zero issue with it would express the same opinion if the judge had donated to Trump and the GOP? I think we all know the answer to that.

Lastly, in regard to a venue change. I am not familiar with NY law in this regard, but even a local trial location can be changed if the location is prejudicial to the defendant. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that was the case here. I've stated long ago that I think it is an exceedingly difficult task to find a place Trump could receive a fair trial, and that's a sword that cuts both ways. But Manhattan sure as hell ain't the place. Yes, they have the same say in the jury pool that the prosecution does, but when your jury pool is already stacked against you that doesn't mean much.

I realize the intent of this thread is to correct misinformation, but I must point out that significant concerns regarding this case remain.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What's not on there. The judge violated judicial rules by donating to Biden and another Democratic organization. I know the amount was minimal, but one need only ask if the same crowd who have zero issue with it would express the same opinion if the judge had donated to Trump and the GOP? I think we all know the answer to that.

Which I didn't dig into because that information is not misinformation. However, context is helpful as this was something that had been discovered before trial, Merchan sought outside opinions on and was told he did not need to recuse and he was disciplined with a caution. When he denied the motion for the recusal, this was something that Trump's team could appeal, and they chose not to.

In addition, Merchan was very even handed with the courtroom. There were times where he had an opportunity to really tip the scales against Trump and chose not to. My opinion on this is much like other things. I know everyone has a bias; you have to account for that. However, there are people who are capable of setting aside biases in order to manage things within the laws and regulations that guide their jobs. That is what you want in career civil servants, and that is what I saw in Merchan's handling of the case.

(06-04-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, in regard to a venue change. I am not familiar with NY law in this regard, but even a local trial location can be changed if the location is prejudicial to the defendant. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that was the case here. I've stated long ago that I think it is an exceedingly difficult task to find a place Trump could receive a fair trial, and that's a sword that cuts both ways. But Manhattan sure as hell ain't the place. Yes, they have the same say in the jury pool that the prosecution does, but when your jury pool is already stacked against you that doesn't mean much.

From my understanding of NY's criminal procedures, a change of venue motion is only done in criminal cases to move the trial to an adjoining jurisdiction in order to broaden the jury pool: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cpl/part-2/title-j/article-230/230-20/

My guess is that this would have been a consideration had jury selection gone on much longer. But as it was, they seated a jury in a relatively timely manner.

(06-04-2024, 12:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I realize the intent of this thread is to correct misinformation, but I must point out that significant concerns regarding this case remain.

Which is fair. This isn't necessarily about saying nothing is a concern about this case. This is more of a "focus on the right things, not the inflammatory propaganda" type of thing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2024, 05:47 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which I didn't dig into because that information is not misinformation. However, context is helpful as this was something that had been discovered before trial, Merchan sought outside opinions on and was told he did not need to recuse and he was disciplined with a caution. When he denied the motion for the recusal, this was something that Trump's team could appeal, and they chose not to.

In addition, Merchan was very even handed with the courtroom. There were times where he had an opportunity to really tip the scales against Trump and chose not to. My opinion on this is much like other things. I know everyone has a bias; you have to account for that. However, there are people who are capable of setting aside biases in order to manage things within the laws and regulations that guide their jobs. That is what you want in career civil servants, and that is what I saw in Merchan's handling of the case.

For the record, I don't have any issue with how the judge handled the case, while acknowledging I didn't follow the case on a day by day basis.

Quote:From my understanding of NY's criminal procedures, a change of venue motion is only done in criminal cases to move the trial to an adjoining jurisdiction in order to broaden the jury pool: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2022/cpl/part-2/title-j/article-230/230-20/

My guess is that this would have been a consideration had jury selection gone on much longer. But as it was, they seated a jury in a relatively timely manner.

Which is funky to me.  If the venue carries inherent bias, and I'd argue a case could easily be made in Trump's case, then it should not be used.  I'm aware that you can't right a law to cover every possible scenario, but this isn't exactly a standard case.

Quote:Which is fair. This isn't necessarily about saying nothing is a concern about this case. This is more of a "focus on the right things, not the inflammatory propaganda" type of thing.

Which I appreciate and acknowledged.  I'm never going to be ok with it for reasons already mentioned.

[NATI BENGALS]

Population of Manhattan is somewhere around 1.6 million people. Which is over 5 times the population of my city Cincinnati.

When the defense is. Well our guy is such a well known scumbag you won’t be able to find 12 jurors who can be fair out of our 1.6 million people.

Does that say more about the city or the guy?

[StoneTheCrow]

10) These felony charges and trial wouldn’t have happened at all had it not been for the defendant’s name and/or status as a presidential candidate in 2024.

Just one I’ve seen a lot of, not sure if there’s proof one way or another outside of just seeming obvious.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-04-2024, 07:13 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: 10) These felony charges and trial wouldn’t have happened at all had it not been for the defendant’s name and/or status as a presidential candidate in 2024.

Just one I’ve seen a lot of, not sure if there’s proof one way or another outside of just seeming obvious.

When did the inquiry start at first ? 

[StoneTheCrow]

(06-04-2024, 07:26 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: When did the inquiry start at first ? 

Not sure, the indictment was in March 2023.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2024, 06:49 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Population of Manhattan is somewhere around 1.6 million people. Which is over 5 times the population of my city Cincinnati.

When the defense is. Well our guy is such a well known scumbag you won’t be able to find 12 jurors who can be fair out of our 1.6 million people.

Does that say more about the city or the guy?

The cognitive dissonance on this board never fails to impress.  We have constant conversations about the ability of professional jurists to remain politically impartial.  Every thread on a SCOTUS decision has one side or the other lambasting certain justices for being partisan actors.  Yet you think among residents of a county in which 86.8% of residents voted for Biden over Trump that you can find twelve impartial, amateur jury members who will completely discount their partisan leanings and judge a case based solely on its merits?

Just so we're clear, professional judges are not capable of being impartial, but twelve rando's from Manhattan definitely are?

Source for election results.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/new-york/

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-04-2024, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The cognitive dissonance on this board never fails to impress.  We have constant conversations about the ability of professional jurists to remain politically impartial.  Every thread on a SCOTUS decision has one side or the other lambasting certain justices for being partisan actors.  Yet you think among residents of a county in which 86.8% of residents voted for Biden over Trump that you can find twelve impartial, amateur jury members who will completely discount their partisan leanings and judge a case based solely on its merits?

Just so we're clear, professional judges are not capable of being impartial, but twelve rando's from Manhattan definitely are?

Source for election results.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/new-york/

So any politician you vote against you would automatically vote guilty if you were a jurist on their criminal trial?

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2024, 07:26 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: When did the inquiry start at first ? 

2018.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2024, 08:02 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: So any politician you vote against you would automatically vote guilty if you were a jurist on their criminal trial?

Using the logic constantly espoused on this board these jurors are not capable of being unbiased and are partisan actors..

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2024, 07:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The cognitive dissonance on this board never fails to impress.  We have constant conversations about the ability of professional jurists to remain politically impartial.  Every thread on a SCOTUS decision has one side or the other lambasting certain justices for being partisan actors.  Yet you think among residents of a county in which 86.8% of residents voted for Biden over Trump that you can find twelve impartial, amateur jury members who will completely discount their partisan leanings and judge a case based solely on its merits?

Just so we're clear, professional judges are not capable of being impartial, but twelve rando's from Manhattan definitely are?

Source for election results.

https://www.politico.com/2020-election/results/new-york/

I think we need to be clear, though, SCOTUS justices are chosen because of their partisan leanings. When I talked about less faith in jurists as you move up the ladder, this is the sort of thing I am talking about. Presidents are expecting justices to rule a certain way when they appoint them. Now, they can go rogue from time to time, but as much as we like to pretend they are supposed to be non-partisan, they are expected to be partisan by the political class in Washington.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-04-2024, 08:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think we need to be clear, though, SCOTUS justices are chosen because of their partisan leanings. When I talked about less faith in jurists as you move up the ladder, this is the sort of thing I am talking about. Presidents are expecting justices to rule a certain way when they appoint them. Now, they can go rogue from time to time, but as much as we like to pretend they are supposed to be non-partisan, they are expected to be partisan by the political class in Washington.

I wasn't referring to you in this regard.  Your positions are logically consistent.  Let's use the Kyle Rittenhouse trial for an example.  Both of us thought this was the clearest case of self defense we'd ever seen.  Yet some type of pressure (political?) compelled the DA to file charges.  The judge was very even handed, is known as a fair and competent judge and was constantly lambasted here by left leaning posters for being a partisan actor.  If we use their own logic, then a jury in a county in which close to 90% of the residents voted against Trump it would be an impossibility to find twelve impartial jurors.  If a professional jurist cannot be a non-partisan actor then there's zero chance an amateur jury member can.  The same argument could be made in reverse if Trump was tried in a deep red county in West Virginia, using the exact same logic.

I know asking for consistency from hyper partisans wholly blind to their own deficiencies is a big ask, but it's not exactly hard to see if you're even slightly paying attention.

[Belsnickel]

(06-04-2024, 08:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I wasn't referring to you in this regard.  Your positions are logically consistent.  Let's use the Kyle Rittenhouse trial for an example.  Both of us thought this was the clearest case of self defense we'd ever seen.  Yet some type of pressure (political?) compelled the DA to file charges.  The judge was very even handed, is known as a fair and competent judge and was constantly lambasted here by left leaning posters for being a partisan actor.  If we use their own logic, then a jury in a county in which close to 90% of the residents voted against Trump it would be an impossibility to find twelve impartial jurors.  If a professional jurist cannot be a non-partisan actor then there's zero chance an amateur jury member can.  The same argument could be made in reverse if Trump was tried in a deep red county in West Virginia, using the exact same logic.

I know asking for consistency from hyper partisans wholly blind to their own deficiencies is a big ask, but it's not exactly hard to see if you're even slightly paying attention.

I gotcha, now. Oddly enough, I think my attitude that everyone has bias allows me to more readily accept people being able to set their biases aside. I'm also a big proponent of judging people's actions and words, not the person themselves.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-04-2024, 08:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 2018.

So he wasn't a candidate at that moment. This is hardly disputable.