Does NY have another corrupt judge?

[GMDino]

They've gone to jury deliberations.

Trump must stay in the Courthouse while they deliberate.

But he still post his "truths":




At the VERY least they read the charges before giving the jury instructions. He should have been paying attention I guess.



He chose not to testify.  The gag order had nothing to do with that.




It was the closing argument.  His attorney took three hours before that.

He deleted the one (or I couldn't find it) where he said the judge should just say he was not guilty.

If I find a copy I'll be sure to add it. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I have to say, close to twenty-five years working in the criminal justice system and I have never heard of a criminal case in which the judge instructed the jury that they don't have to agree on what crime was committed. That seems completely antithetical to our jury system and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It's like they're trying to give Trump and his proponents ammunition.

[*pally*]

(05-30-2024, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say, close to twenty-five years working in the criminal justice system and I have never heard of a criminal case in which the judge instructed the jury that they don't have to agree on what crime was committed.  That seems completely antithetical to our jury system and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  It's like they're trying to give Trump and his proponents ammunition.

NY has some unique laws

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 12:52 PM)pally Wrote: NY has some unique laws

Apparently.  That doesn't address my main point, though.  Not having to agree on what crime was committed rather appears to destroy the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal conviction.  If the jury cannot agree on what crime was committed that would appear to be a "reasonable doubt."

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-30-2024, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say, close to twenty-five years working in the criminal justice system and I have never heard of a criminal case in which the judge instructed the jury that they don't have to agree on what crime was committed.  That seems completely antithetical to our jury system and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  It's like they're trying to give Trump and his proponents ammunition.

Indeed.

They are stacking the deck against themselves if they are actually trying to convict DJT.

Now if the charges are politically motivated to keep DJT off the campaign trail, then the plan is working perfectly.

[GMDino]

(05-30-2024, 12:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I have to say, close to twenty-five years working in the criminal justice system and I have never heard of a criminal case in which the judge instructed the jury that they don't have to agree on what crime was committed.  That seems completely antithetical to our jury system and the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.  It's like they're trying to give Trump and his proponents ammunition.

(05-30-2024, 01:19 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Apparently.  That doesn't address my main point, though.  Not having to agree on what crime was committed rather appears to destroy the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for criminal conviction.  If the jury cannot agree on what crime was committed that would appear to be a "reasonable doubt."

(05-30-2024, 01:25 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Indeed.

They are stacking the deck against themselves if they are actually trying to convict DJT.

Now if the charges are politically motivated to keep DJT off the campaign trail, then the plan is working perfectly.

First off Trump and his "proponents" wil take ANTHING and use it as ammunition because...Trump.

Secondly, Google is a thing:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836

Quote:Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial


[color=var(--color-primary-text)]
Former President Donald Trump attends his trial at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York, Wednesday, May 29, 2024. Social media users are distorting instructions New York Judge Juan M. Merchan gave to jurors before they began their deliberations. (Doug Mills/The New York Times via AP, Pool)





[color=var(--color-byline-authors)]BY  MELISSA GOLDIN[/color]
Published 4:04 PM EDT, May 29, 2024
Share
CLAIM: New York Judge Juan M. Merchan told the jury in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial that they don’t need a unanimous verdict to convict Trump.[/color]

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign. The judge said jurors could consider three different ways the law may have been broken and that they don’t have to be unanimous on this decision.

THE FACTS: As jury deliberations began Wednesday in Trump’s trial, social media users spread false information about Merchan’s instructions to the seven men and five women who will determine the outcome in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president.


“How is this even a fair trial?” reads one Instagram post that had received more than 8,000 likes as of Wednesday. “The judge just announced that the jury does not even have to be unanimous in their judgment to convict President Trump! This entire process was rigged from the start.”

An X post reads: “Judge Merchan has told the jury that they do NOT NEED unanimity to convict. They do not have to all agree on what occurred. 4 can agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He will treat 4-4-4 as a UNANIMOUS verdict.”

But these claims distort Merchan’s instructions.

The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

Merchan gave the jurors three possible “unlawful means” they can apply to Trump’s charges: falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.

For a conviction, each juror would have to find that at least one of those three things happened, but they don’t have to agree unanimously on which it was.

Trump is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree as part of a scheme to bury damaging stories that he feared could hurt his 2016 campaign, particularly as his reputation was suffering at the time from comments he had made about women.
___
This is part of the AP’s effort to address widely shared false and misleading information that is circulating online. Learn more about fact-checking at AP.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 01:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: First off Trump and his "proponents" wil take ANTHING and use it as ammunition because...Trump.

Secondly, Google is a thing:

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-jury-unanimous-verdict-679053515836

Yes, Google is a thing, and yet you still failed.  Directly quoted from your source;

The judge said jurors could consider three different ways the law may have been broken and that they don’t have to be unanimous on this decision.


This is exactly what I said.  If the jury cannot agree on what, and how, a crime has been committed it does not seem to use the reasonable doubt standard.  Say four jury members think X happened, four jury members think Y happened and four jury members think Z happened.  This is not a unanimous jury.  If you think X happened then you don't think Y or Z happened.  Couple that with this being the first time, ever, this particular charge has been filed as a felony and this just oozes with shenanigans to the standard observer.  Based on Cohen being the key witness and being caught in lies on the stand I'd anticipate this being a hung jury.  But man, does this case just add gallons of fuel to the fire.






You are correct that trump supporters will use anything as ammunition.  Of course the exact same thing can be said about Trump detractors like yourself.

[GMDino]

(05-30-2024, 01:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, Google is a thing, and yet you still failed.  Directly quoted from your source;

The judge said jurors could consider three different ways the law may have been broken and that they don’t have to be unanimous on this decision.


This is exactly what I said.  If the jury cannot agree on what, and how, a crime has been committed it does not seem to use the reasonable doubt standard.  Say four jury members think X happened, four jury members think Y happened and four jury members think Z happened.  This is not a unanimous jury.  If you think X happened then you don't think Y or Z happened.  Couple that with this being the first time, ever, this particular charge has been filed as a felony and this just oozes with shenanigans to the standard observer.  Based on Cohen being the key witness and being caught in lies on the stand I'd anticipate this being a hung jury.  But man, does this case just add gallons of fuel to the fire.






You are correct that trump supporters will use anything as ammunition.  Of course the exact same thing can be said about Trump detractors like yourself.

JFC.

There are three ways the crime COULD be committed.  They don't have to agree how it was done...just that it was done.

They found a body that was stabbed and shot.  Either could have caused the death. The jury doesn't have to agree which way the the accused killed the victim just that they did it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: JFC.

There are three ways the crime COULD be committed.  They don't have to agree how it was done...just that it was done.

They found a body that was stabbed and shot.  Either could have caused the death. The jury doesn't have to agree which way the the accused killed the victim just that they did it.

Yeah, I get that, you're not getting my point.  I'm going to ignore your example because I could go off into the weeds with it.  Here is the salient issue.  If the jury cannot agree on what happened that flies in the face of a unanimous jury.  Unanimity is a key determinant in criminal conviction.  If the law as written allows for numerous interpretations of its violation than it is an exceedingly poorly written law.  Laws are specific for a reason, as specificity is required to prove a certain crime has occurred.  So, while the judge could be correct, and almost certainly is, this level of ambiguity in a criminal law is, again, more fuel for the fire.

I have zero issue with the GA case and the documents case, but this case should never have been brought to trial.  Whatever the result it's going to be adding napalm to a house fire.  What a shit show.

[GMDino]

(05-30-2024, 02:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I get that, you're not getting my point.  I'm going to ignore your example because I could go off into the weeds with it.  Here is the salient issue.  If the jury cannot agree on what happened that flies in the face of a unanimous jury.  Unanimity is a key determinant in criminal conviction.  If the law as written allows for numerous interpretations of its violation than it is an exceedingly poorly written law.  Laws are specific for a reason, as specificity is required to prove a certain crime has occurred.  So, while the judge could be correct, and almost certainly is, this level of ambiguity in a criminal law is, again, more fuel for the fire.

I have zero issue with the GA case and the documents case, but this case should never have been brought to trial.  Whatever the result it's going to be adding napalm to a house fire.  What a shit show.

That's simply your interpretation.  They have to unanimously agree the crime was committed.  That's the point that matters.

Not that I don't believe you don't know the law in NY, or in this case, as well as the judge. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2024, 02:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's simply your interpretation.  They have to unanimously agree the crime was committed.  That's the point that matters.

If they can't agree on what occurred then how can they do that?

Quote:Not that I don't believe you don't know the law in NY, or in this case, as well as the judge. 

Interesting as that's a point I've already conceded.  I guess acknowledging that would have cost you a chance to make a smarmy comment.  And you the poster child for board civility and all.

[GMDino]

(05-30-2024, 02:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If they can't agree on what occurred then how can they do that?



Interesting as that's a point I've already conceded.  I guess acknowledging that would have cost you a chance to make a smarmy comment.  And you the poster child for board civility and all.

It was explained to you.  They must all agree a crime was committed and it could have been committed in one of three ways.

You acknowledge that you don't know if its wrong or not but still imply the thing you don't know is wrong somehow.  Heck, both sides agreed on the jury instructions but you still think the judge was somehow incorrect?

This is the point where I would suggest letting the people involved handle it as they know more than us.

If the judge made a mistake that will come out in the appeal if needed.

Edit to add: Mark Rubio is saying the exact same thing you did. If that isn't proof you're wrong I don't know what is!

[XenoMorph]

(05-30-2024, 03:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: It was explained to you.  They must all agree a crime was committed and it could have been committed in one of three ways.

You acknowledge that you don't know if its wrong or not but still imply the thing you don't know is wrong somehow.  Heck, both sides agreed on the jury instructions but you still think the judge was somehow incorrect?

This is the point where I would suggest letting the people involved handle it as they know more than us.

If the judge made a mistake that will come out in the appeal if needed.

Edit to add:  Mark Rubio is saying the exact same thing you did.  If that isn't proof you're wrong I don't know what is!

This has been one of the biggest clown shows in a court room in a while and the judge is the lead clown

[HarleyDog]

(05-30-2024, 03:59 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: This has been one of the biggest clown shows in a court room in a while and the judge is the lead clown

Yes it has been. The latest was the "Rain Metaphor." What a crock of shit. His instructions through that was basically, if you assume he did it, than he did it. The rest of you can keep supporting the erosion of our justice system because it fit's your narrative, THIS TIME. What a shame.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(05-30-2024, 04:10 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yes it has been. The latest was the "Rain Metaphor." What a crock of shit. His instructions through that was basically, if you assume he did it, than he did it. The rest of you can keep supporting the erosion of our justice system because it fit's your narrative, THIS TIME. What a shame.

Correct.


If convicted, DJT easily wins an appeal. It's like they do not really care about an airtight case against him.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-30-2024, 04:10 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Yes it has been. The latest was the "Rain Metaphor." What a crock of shit. His instructions through that was basically, if you assume he did it, than he did it. The rest of you can keep supporting the erosion of our justice system because it fit's your narrative, THIS TIME. What a shame.

Care to elaborate some more on the rain metaphor? I briefly saw something on it earlier but was not sure if it was true…because I assumed it just couldn’t be.

[CKwi88]

The "rain metaphor" (or an equivalent) is a very standard element of just about any criminal jury charge across the entire nation, including here in Connecticut. It is used to help explain to laypersons the difference and application of direct and circumstantial evidence and making evidentiary inferences.

There is absolutely nothing controversial about it.

Here is the exact text from New York's standard criminal jury instructions with botched formatting:

Quote:Evidentiary Inferences

(If a circumstantial evidence charge is to be given,
the following should be omitted)
In evaluating the evidence, you may consider any fact that is proven and any inference which may be drawn from such fact.1
To draw an inference means to infer, find, conclude that a fact exists or does not exist based upon proof of some other fact or facts.
For example, you go to bed one night when it is not raining; when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, conclude, that it had rained. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.
An inference must only be drawn from a proven fact or facts and then only if the inference flows naturally, reasonably and logically from the proven fact or facts, not if it is speculative.2 Therefore, in deciding whether to draw an inference, you must look at and consider all the facts in the light of reason, common sense, and experience.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-30-2024, 04:16 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Correct.


If convicted, DJT easily wins an appeal. It's like they do not really care about an airtight case against him.

I’m getting ready to host my Convicted Felon-Estivus party much like I did my Merry Impeachmas party!

[HarleyDog]

(05-30-2024, 04:17 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: Care to elaborate some more on the rain metaphor? I briefly saw something on it earlier but was not sure if it was true…because I assumed it just couldn’t be.

This is where I read the article. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trial-jury-rain-metaphor-instructions-evidence-2024-5

Quote:The jury in Donald Trump's criminal hush-money trial had a specific request before starting deliberations on Thursday — they asked to hear again what they described in a note as the judge's "rain metaphor" instruction.

It advises a jury that they can infer that it's raining — by seeing someone's wet umbrella, for example — even if they don't see the rain themselves.

The request suggests [/url]they may be weighing Trump's intent, which can only be inferred, not proven.
The "rain metaphor," as the jury note called it, is often used by judges in jury instructions.
It tells the jurors that they can infer certain facts from the surrounding circumstances using their common sense.


[quote pid='1484367' dateline='1717096804']
Jurors were visibly engaged as they listened.

Juror 3, a young corporate lawyer, and Juror 5, a charter school teacher, each leaned forward in their seats in the front row of the jury box as Merchan read what they called "rain metaphor."

Juror 4, a young male security engineer who sat between them, took notes.

Also taking notes was Juror 7, a middle-aged lawyer who had said during jury selection that "I'm a litigator, so I take the law seriously and I take the judge's instructions very seriously."

As the judge described how to infer Trump's intent "beyond a reasonable doubt," the engineer, lawyer and teacher scribbled hard in their white legal pads.

Meanwhile, Juror 12, a physical therapist, held her hand to her chin as if she were concentrating during the recitation of the rain metaphor.

Juror 10 began taking notes as the judge explained how Trump may have violated campaign finance laws — [url=https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-hush-money-trial-charges-explained-narrative-as-jury-deliberates-2024-5]a possible path to finding him guilty of the business falsification charges.

Why intent matters

The jurors are considering 34 counts of whether Trump falsified business records as part of a scheme to cover up a hush-money payment to Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. They deliberated for four-and-a-half hours Wednesday.

Advertisement


On Wednesday afternoon, they asked for the judge to read back roughly a half-hour of testimony. The requested read backs suggest they had dived deep into the details of the alleged conspiracy to influence the 2016 election by keeping Daniels quiet about an affair she says she had with Trump.

They asked for the "rain metaphor" specifically on Thursday morning.

Trump, who is 77 years old, does not use email or send text messages.
There is no evidence that he ever typed up a memo saying something like, "I'm going to falsify documentation of payments to my lawyer Michael Cohen in order to violate section 17-152 of the New York Election Law, also breaking campaign finance and tax laws along the way."

[/quote]

(05-30-2024, 04:20 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: The "rain metaphor" (or an equivalent) is a very standard element of just about any criminal jury charge across the entire nation, including here in Connecticut. It is used to help explain to laypersons the difference and application of direct and circumstantial evidence and making evidentiary inferences.

There is absolutely nothing controversial about it.

Here is the exact text from New York's standard criminal jury instructions with botched formatting:

"Suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining, and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window," the judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, told jurors, reading from the jury instructions he gave Wednesday.

"You do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas," Merchan told the jurors, who appeared to listen closely.

"Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer — that is, conclude — that it rained during the night," the judge said.
"In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas," he concluded.

But what an ass I make of myself if I wake up and tell everyone it rained, and then find out the fire department cleared the hydrants, or the street sweeper went by, or the neighbors lawn sprinkler bled into my yard. Weak examples for sure, but they are real. If you can't prove it, then he's innocent. 

[GMDino]

(05-30-2024, 04:46 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: This is where I read the article. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trial-jury-rain-metaphor-instructions-evidence-2024-5



But what an ass I make of myself if I wake up and tell everyone it rained, and then find out the fire department cleared the hydrants, or the street sweeper went by, or the neighbors lawn sprinkler bled into my yard. Weak examples for sure, but they are real. If you can't prove it, then he's innocent. 

But that wasn't the only way to infer it rained in the example given.

Or do you think no one has ever been convicted on circumstantial evidence?  (Ignoring that they have evidence in this case that is not circumstantial.)