Posted on 05/08/2024 8:44:35 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Jury consultant Robert Hirschhorn told CNN on Monday that the prosecution’s lack of evidence in former President Donald Trump’s trial so far is a major issue that could lead to a “not guilty” verdict despite the likelihood of the jury being largely Democratic because of the Manhattan venue.
Former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney testified on Monday, asserting that Trump never directed him to falsify documents under cross examination by the defense. McConney is yet another witness who has not proven direct involvement by the former president, with Hirschhorn saying even a Democratic jury is likely to acquit Trump if the prosecution does not eventually offer more compelling evidence.
“Cases are won and lost on cross-examination, not direct examination,” Hirschhorn told host Kaitlan Collins.
“And the fact that this witness said that he never had direction from Trump to falsify any records, that’s a huge problem for the prosecution’s case,” he added.
Witness testimony has yet to establish critical portions of prosecutors’ claims related to their efforts to prove Trump falsified business documents relating to his former attorney Michael Cohen’s $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels to be quiet regarding claims of a “sexual encounter.” Prosecutors allege the payment ahead of the 2016 election was part of a “conspiracy” to influence its outcome.
“This is the only person the prosecution could have to talk about the accounting side, at least so far,” Hirschhorn said about McConney. “He’s the highest one up so far from the Trump org side. He has not provided, Kaitlan, that crucial link between the crime and the defendant’s either knowledge about it or ordering that the documents be falsified. It’s a big problem, and I‘m telling you, if they don’t fix this problem, what you’re looking at is this kind of verdict, right here of a not guilty, even from a predominantly Democratic jury. They have to follow the evidence in the case. And if the state doesn’t link all this up, you‘re coming in with a not guilty.”
I’m not being a wise guy when I’ve predicted on this forum a 15-20% chance of a directed verdict. With a judge as embroiled as this one, that’s a very respectable likelihood. This case is covered in reversible error and Marchand does not want to get reversed. He can take out his left wing hackery on Trump through the trial, then walk him on a directed verdict with a long self-serving decision that he can fashion to try to get him a pass from the left. Not a hard needle to thread given that even leftist commentators are attacking this case
Wait a minute!
Is this saying that CNN has commentators on their network that see it as a “Huge Problem” that there is no evidence shown so far that Donald Trump is guilty and he might not go to jail for 136 years as everyone is hoping?
Well, they’ll just make some up. FBI will help I’m sure.
Hey stupid: They're Democrats.
I predict a stormy day for Stormy Daniels tomorrow. She’s already admitted extreme bias and Evan Marchand has tacitly admitted she shouldn’t have been allowed to testify in the first place… her testimony is not relevant to the elements of the purported crime.
What’s Cohen going to make up? He’s better be awfully careful. He’s also broadcast his extreme bias against the defendant, and if this thing blows up the disappointed rats will be looking to draw at least some blood, and that could well be another perjury prosecution for good old Mike
The presumption of innocence in criminal cases is a fundamental right and is necessary for two reasons, 1) the impossibly of proving a negative, (proving the defendant did not commit the crime) and 2) to balance out the defendants finite resources against the states practically unlimited resources. In this case, the prosecution has somehow managed with its vast resources to prove Trump’s innocence.
Wait a second. You have to have Evidence to convict someone of a crime?
When did this start?
(sarcasm.)
p
Lack of evidence? How about a lack of a crime!
bttt
“Let the jury consider their verdict,” the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
“No, no!” said the Queen. “Sentence first—verdict afterwards.”
“Stuff and nonsense!” said Alice loudly. “The idea of having the sentence first!
- Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (1865), Lewis Carroll
I learned a new word looking this up. It’s arbitrariness.
Means the quality of being subject to an individual’s will, judgment, discretion, or personal preference.
Pretty much sums up the dem’s plan for all of these legal abuses.
When this is all said and done, Merchan needs serious consequences.
It went from, “pound the facts, pound the law and pound the table” to “hide the facts, pound the pornstar, pound the donuts”
The idea of acquittal with a NY jury is just stupid.
Nope...never happen! DJT *will* be convicted...on *all* counts.He’ll be convicted regardless of how flimsy the charges are...he’ll be convicted regardless of how flimsy the evidence is. Rat Party Headquarters has already assured this outcome.
A directed verdict? Geeze...put down your crack pipe,man (woman?)!
Not in New York.
The goal is a guilty verdict to give Joe Biden a campaign attack on DJT, convicted Felon. Water off a ducks back with the jury cause they know the verdict will be overturned on appeal but they can walk out of the courtroom Heroes. I can’t imagine the liberal hatred directed at the one who could not convict. That juror would have to leave the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.