Monday, April 15th: First Ever Criminal Trial for a Former US President

[SmokingFap]

Legal Experts: The Trump Trial Jury Instructions Are Not Normal​

Katie Pavlich | May 29, 2024 11:15 AM

Closing arguments in the trial of former President Donald Trump in New York City, where he is charged with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, have concluded and Judge Juan Merchan has given the jury their instructions. The instructions were given verbally and jurors won't receive printed copies, although they can ask questions.

According to legal experts, Merchan's standards for a conviction are abnormal and do not require jurors to reach a unanimous decision on the charges. Further, jurors don't have to determine what crime was committed.

"Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who has been inside the courtroom, writes. "The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime."

More here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...ial-jury-instructions-are-not-normal-n2639670

The above proves that Merchan is a corrupt Judge unfit for the bench. This is a total corruption of American law and judicial process.

I watched a clip about this from the Fox Now YouTube channel, with two lawyers breaking down and analyzing the jury instructions. It does seem to be a highly unusual case and will certainly serve as reasonable grounds for an appeal if Diaper Donnie is, in fact, convicted. Certainly doesn't necessarily mean a conviction would be overturned, but would be an interesting and consequential appeal.

So there. Unlike you guys, I can actually concede a rational, logical, educated point to your side.

 

[Rightguide]

I watched a clip about this from the Fox Now YouTube channel, with two lawyers breaking down and analyzing the jury instructions. It does seem to be a highly unusual case and will certainly serve as reasonable grounds for an appeal if Diaper Donnie is, in fact, convicted. Certainly doesn't necessarily mean a conviction would be overturned, but would be an interesting and consequential appeal.

So there. Unlike you guys, I can actually concede a rational, logical, educated point to your side.

A conviction in this case will not survive the appellate process. Write that down.

 

[Lazaran]

A conviction in this case will not survive the appellate process. Write that down.

Derp “Arizona audit” Derp…



"Right"guide

 

[RobDownSouth]

Now ain't that interesting! Why isn't Weisselberg on the stand? Neither side called him.

Why?

Weisselberg's silence is not a mere coincidence. He signed an NDA with Trump, a pact that bars him from testifying against Trump in any criminal cases and from disclosing his role working for Trump. This agreement was sealed with a hefty two million dollar severance pay. Testifying would result in the loss of that nice bank account.

I'm not 100% certain, but I'm pretty sure NDAs cannot be used to circumvent testimony in a criminal trial. If it was legal, wouldn't every crook pay off every potential adversarial witness via NDA?

 

[icanhelp1]

lol, it was cited in the transcript, it has been posted on here a number of times by myself. Don't believe it, I don't care, sucks to be as stupid as you. I pity your wife and children and grandchildren.

No it wasn’t. The tax fraud and FECA violations were not made evident till the final summations by the prosecution. One other little fact. During Pecker’s direct examination by the prosecutor it was determined that Trump told Pecker he doesn’t buy stories because they get out anyway which leaves Cohen on an island by himself, and would lead any sane mind to the conclusion that Cohen acted on his own. imho

 

[SmokingFap]

A conviction in this case will not survive the appellate process. Write that down.

I will. And I will give you credit if that should happen. I would expect the same consideration if it goes the other way.

Actually, I don't think I'll expect that. I don't remember you ever conceding a point or admitting when you were wrong. But I don't mind being the bigger man.

 

[Bray123]

A conviction in this case will not survive the appellate process. Write that down.

That may be true.

There's a reason why Dirty-Diaperman stacked the SCOTUS in the final hours of his presidency.

 

[SmokingFap]

Because up till the final summation by the prosecution the defense felt the prosecution failed to prove intent and didn't want to complicate the issue for the jury. The defense also did not want to expose Wiesselberg to unnecessary cross examination by the prosecution. Why you ask? well, because Merchan gave broad latitude and scope to the prosecution to meander all over God's creation with its direct examination while unfairly restricting the defense to a much narrower scope of lines of questioning. Also, Mechan over ruled defense objections more frequently than the prosecution. According to expert commentary by Turley and McCarthy the prosecution realized they were defending a case were the advantage rested with the prosecution.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

 

[Bray123]

No it wasn’t. The tax fraud and FECA violations were not made evident till the final summations by the prosecution. One other little fact. During Pecker’s direct examination by the prosecutor it was determined that Trump told Pecker he doesn’t buy stories because they get out anyway which leaves Cohen on an island by himself, and would lead any sane mind to the conclusion that Cohen acted on his own. imho

He knew it would get out anyway, but he wanted to delay it until after the election. Hence the election fraud.

 

[SmokingFap]

That may be true.

Huh. Another one of us libtards actually conceding a rational point. There seems to be a pattern here. Maybe we are the more rational and just plain better people.

 

[Lazaran]

That may be true.

There's a reason why Dirty-Diaperman stacked the SCOTUS in the final hours of his presidency.

For the OFFICIAL record , it’s “Von Shitzinpantz”, not “Dirty Diaperman”.

But otherwise, spot on.

 

[SmokingFap]

No it wasn’t. The tax fraud and FECA violations were not made evident till the final summations by the prosecution.

The final arguments were included in the official transcript, n'est pas? So he was right. Just be a real man and admit it.

 

[Rightguide]

I will. And I will give you credit if that should happen. I would expect the same consideration if it goes the other way.

Actually, I don't think I'll expect that. I don't remember you ever conceding a point or admitting when you were wrong. But I don't mind being the bigger man.

If I'm wrong I will acknowledge my error. There are many problems with this trial, so many that there is a possibility of a direct appeal to the SCOTUS if a guilty verdict is reached. The jury instructions are unconstitutional. There are glaring 6th Amendment issues involved. And a bevy of other legal irregularities.

 

[SmokingFap]

For the OFFICIAL record , it’s “Von Shitzinpantz”, not “Dirty Diaperman”.

But otherwise, spot on.

I prefer Ol' Babydoll Hands (TM) myself. But any of these monikers suffice.

 

[Rightguide]

Why are you avoiding answering why Trump didn't call Weisselberg? We know that answer and so do you.

Because in the words of Trump's legal counsel:

"The reason Mr Weisselberg is not a witness to either side is because the district attorney's office initiated a perjury prosecution in the lead-up to this case."

 

[SmokingFap]

If I'm wrong I will acknowledge my error.

I will hold you to that, or roast you mercilessly till the end of time for chickening out.

There are many problems with this trial, so many that there is a possibility of a direct appeal to the SCOTUS if a guilty verdict is reached. The jury instructions are unconstitutional. There are glaring 6th Amendment issues involved. And a bevy of other legal irregularities.

Shame you're not on Trump's legal team. I'm sure Todd Blanche would greatly value your most learned input. He's got you on speed-dial, doesn't he?

Nice use of the word "bevy", though. I might have gone with plethora or cornucopia, but for brevity's sake, bevy works just fine.

 

[jaF0]

Thursday the 30th?

Or .....

 

[Rightguide]

For some reason, maybe a glitch, I cannot quote Faps post #1591 and reply. So I will reply here:

I have no fear in the remote event that I'm wrong. I have been dragged by experts and I'm still standing.

 

[SmokingFap]

For some reason, maybe a glitch, I cannot quote Faps post #1591 and reply. So I will reply here:

I have no fear in the remote event that I'm wrong. I have been dragged by experts and I'm still standing.

Fair enough. Good man. Don't get used to my compliments, though.

 

[Rightguide]

Fair enough. Good man. Don't get used to my compliments, though.

I t

Fair enough. Good man. Don't get used to my compliments, though.

I take nothing for granted.

 

[icanhelp1]

I t

I take nothing for granted.

A little off topic but a comment was made that if Trump is convicted the Trump team could attempt to request an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. A fact that was brought to light was that the SCOTUS could rule that because Bragg intertwined federal statute to boot strap dead misdemeanors under the veil of state law SCOTUS could rule that NY state laws are unconstitutional. The menu option and how the options given to the jurors in the final arguments by the prosecution conflicts with the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments. I think the reason is that if NY uses federal statutes to prop up state charges then federal statutory guidelines must be used.

 

[icanhelp1]

Because in the words of Trump's legal counsel:

"The reason Mr Weisselberg is not a witness to either side is because the district attorney's office initiated a perjury prosecution in the lead-up to this case."

I heard somewhere that Bragg refused to give Weisselberg immunity.

 

[Rightguide]

I heard somewhere that Bragg refused to give Weisselberg immunity.

I think the only reason he was charged in the first place was to prevent him from testifying in the Trump case. This is Bragg being corrupt.

 

[Rightguide]

A little off topic but a comment was made that if Trump is convicted the Trump team could attempt to request an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. A fact that was brought to light was that the SCOTUS could rule that because Bragg intertwined federal statute to boot strap dead misdemeanors under the veil of state law SCOTUS could rule that NY state laws are unconstitutional. The menu option and how the options given to the jurors in the final arguments by the prosecution conflicts with the 5th, 6th and 7th amendments. I think the reason is that if NY uses federal statutes to prop up state charges then federal statutory guidelines must be used.

I think Judge Merchan could face debarment for his actions in this case. The N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Tit. 22 § 100.5 - A judge or candidate for elective judicial office shall refrain from inappropriate political activity

(h) soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate;

https://casetext.com/regulation/new...refrain-from-inappropriate-political-activity

We know that Merchan donated to Team Biden, and The Progressive Turnout Project.

NEW YORK STATE BAR ASSOCIATION
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
Adopted by the
New York State Bar Association
Effective April 13, 1996

(E) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the
judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to
instances where:
(a) (i) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or
(ii) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding

(c) the judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the
judge's spouse or minor child residing in the judge's household has an economic
interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding or has any
other interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding;

(d) the judge knows that the judge or the judge's spouse, or a person
known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the
spouse of such a person:

We know his daughter is raising money for Democrats on the events ibn this trial

Richardson v United States:

"The jury must be unanimous as to the "series" of underlying offenses in the CCE prosecution. That is the jury must unanimously agree not only that the defendant committed some "continuing series of violations" but also about which specific "violations" make up that continuing series."

In this case, Merchan said the opposite, that the jury didn't have to agree. In other words, Merchan is telling the jury they don't have to agree on any guilt of the elements of the crime that are intended to elevate the misdemeanor violation into the felony the Prosecution is alleging results from those elements.

The alleged felony is why the case is in court and carrying a four-year prison sentence, which wouldn't exist if this were a misdemeanor because it would never have reached a courtroom as the statute of limitations ran out in 2019.

Additionally, we see 55 pages of jury instructions the jury was not allowed to take with them into the jury room, Why? Who could remember 55 pages of detailed jury instructions? We also see the allegedly neutral judge take on the burden of the prosecution by instructing the jury as to where in the evidence they might look to find incriminating evidence against the defendant. The judge prevented lawyers from even discussing the jury instructions in their closing arguments. Absolutely unheard of.

A Bar complaint has already been filed against Merchan by a Representative of Congress with the state of NY. There may be criminal activity in this prosecution between Merchan and Bragg that could come to light before this is finished.

 

[DeluxAuto]

For some reason, maybe a glitch, I cannot quote Faps post #1591 and reply. So I will reply here:

lol

I t

I take nothing for granted.

lolol

I heard somewhere

lololol

I think

lolololol

I think

lololololol