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.