Does NY have another corrupt judge?

[CKwi88]

(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. 

The spirit of the instruction is to explain that the jury can make reasonable, logical and natural inferences from the totality of the circumstances. The instruction is not meant to provide an exhaustive example that would exclude every other imaginable reason that the sidewalk is wet, but to illustrate what reasonable, logical and natural inferences can be made after seeing the evidence that the street and sidewalks are wet. 

If given the circumstances there is a reasonable belief that the wetness was caused by a hydrant, sprinkler or street sweeper (like completely dry rooftops or trees) then this creates a reasonable doubt regarding the rain. The applicability of that concept would be explained to the jury in the judge's instruction regarding burden of proof. 

[Belsnickel]

(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.

Unanimity is key in criminal justice when it comes to the final decision of a jury. They can arrive at it in different ways and have different reasons for coming to their conclusion. This is the case in every jury trial. I think where these instructions are different than most are used to is that in order for the charges Trump was convicted of to be felonies, they must have been done in an effort to conceal another crime. So, the thing that they did not have to be unanimous on in the instructions was what they viewed as the other crime that was being concealed. They did not have to be unanimous in that decision because they were not determining whether or not Trump was guilty of that other crime, only that he was guilty of falsifying business records in an effort to conceal another crime.

Now, why does Trump not need to be found guilty of that other crime? Here is the wording of the law:

Quote:falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person: makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise.

Taken from the jury instructions. So, even if Trump was unsuccessful in committing the other crime, his intent to conceal or aid it is enough to be guilty of the charge he was on trial for. This is why the jury did not need to be unanimous on that decision, because his guilt for that other crime was irrelevant to the determination of his guilt for the charges they were considering. This isn't an uncommon thing in criminal law, it's just not something that gets this much attention so people aren't used to seeing it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

I'm just curious, isn't Intent really required?
Trump states he did it to protect his family, not his campaign.

TBH i don't think it would have made a difference to his campaign at all, but that's for another thread.

[*pally*]

(05-31-2024, 01:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm just curious, isn't Intent really required?
Trump states he did it to protect his family, not his campaign.

TBH i don't think it would have made a difference to his campaign at all, but that's for another thread.

unfortuanely for him, he only claimed that in public.  His attorneys presented no evidence of that claim therefore the only information concerning motice was presented by the prosecution

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2024, 01:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm just curious, isn't Intent really required?
Trump states he did it to protect his family, not his campaign.

TBH i don't think it would have made a difference to his campaign at all, but that's for another thread.

(05-31-2024, 01:47 PM)pally Wrote: unfortuanely for him, he only claimed that in public.  His attorneys presented no evidence of that claim therefore the only information concerning motice was presented by the prosecution

That, plus this is where the whole "one of three" things comes into play. Because the falsified business records not only had potential impacts on campaign finance issues, but also could have been tax fraud, even if one believed the idea he was sparing his family and not the campaign it would still be felonious.