Does NY have another corrupt judge?

[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.