Does NY have another corrupt judge?

[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.