Posted on 05/29/2024 9:16:15 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
One juror who sat for six weeks listening to the evidence presented in a Manhattan courtroom against former President Donald Trump reportedly appears sympathetic towards him.
The jury on Wednesday will begin to consider whether or not Trump, beyond a reasonable doubt, committed a crime of falsifying records to conceal a second crime. Many legal experts believe there is no good case against Trump.
Some legal experts, such as constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, expect the jury will either render a guilty verdict or produce a hung jury that results in a mistrial.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They could get rid of one juror by saying he/she is causing trouble or some such lie and then replace him/her with an alternate that is more to their liking.................
“We will never know who this was or what stand they took”
If Trump does somehow walk you will ABSOLUTELY know who.....I wouldn’t doubt that warning has already been conveyed to the jury......after all, there was plenty of time for that considering they weren’t sequestered......and I guarantee you THAT decision wasn’t incidental.
The judge certainly did his best to put cinder blocks on the scales of justice throughout the trial, and it is still a mystery why he was assigned the case.
(Someone on Fox has been using the "cinder blocks" metaphor, maybe Hannity.)
A mystery?!? Lol
Well, at least that “difficult” juror would not have wasted his or her breath.
Or wasted any mental effort trying to understand or untie Bragg’s Gordian knot.
Having been on jurys even if one or two people on the jury are sympathetic to defendant the other members of jury will put pressure on and try to convince to see otherwise. Also on one jury I was on we saw through the prosecution bs right away and found innocent.
That “one” can be replaced easily with an alternate. They have six, I think
Shoot...I believe that Merchan will just declare that a majority vote will be sufficient and find Trump guilty himself, or better yet, issue a judgment not withstanding the verdict and declare Trump guilty himself.
The federal government claimed that a long ago routine temporary state court order of protection against domestic violence should have been disclosed on the defendant's background questionnaire as a bar to gun ownership. The young black defendant was employed in three blue collar jobs, had no criminal record, and the old girlfriend who had obtained the routine order of protection testified that the defendant had never threatened or even raised his voice against her. He wanted to buy a handgun to defend himself and his pregnant fiancee in the rough neighborhood where they lived.
From the outside, it must have seemed that the blacks on the jury had worn down the two whites. Actually, the most conservative member of the jury -- my pro-gun white lawyer friend -- had begun as the lone holdout for acquittal.
The foreman -- a vociferously antigun liberal white college professor -- had pushed hard for conviction and initially carried the five black jurors. My conservative friend though gradually won the blacks toward acquittal by pointing out numerous factual and legal flaws in the prosecution case. The college professor then reluctantly joined in the acquittal, thinking that he had lost the argument to a white more liberal than he was.
Amen to that...
Welcome to Free Republic.
>> I am in no way a Trump sycophant
Few are. Welcome to FR
They’ll sympathetically vote guilty. 😏
Minor correction. If they vote for Trump, they are not black anymore.
If it is 11 to 1 in that jury room, the holdout juror should not argue the merits of case or the predicate crimes with the jurors, else they will gang up on him. Credibility of witnesses is a subjective appraisal by a juror and he should just stick with Cohen is not credible with all the perjury he has admitted to in the past and he cannot base finding someone guilty on what comes out of his mouth. They are welcome to believe him but he does not.
The third time it was a civil case with only 8 jurors. The plaintiff was a black woman who had been fired from her job for incompetence. She was suing for back pay and hefty punitive damages. The employer wisely has as their lawyer a very articulate black lawyer. It only took us 45 minutes to decide for the company. At least one of the jurors was black, maybe more, but we reached a consensus quickly.
I disagree. The answer is fairly obviou$$$$$$.
I am hoping for this too. But you also have to consider just how vile and evil the prosecution judge team (and I DO mean ‘team’) are.
Frankly, I have no doubt at all that the jury (particularly the one juror both sides think may be the ‘one’) has been threatened with all manner of repercussion if the ‘right’ verdict doesn’t come down.
The repercussion(s) could be many and widely varying - all the way from open doxing and unspecified public actions/reactions to prosecution for lying during jury selection, unauthorized discussions during deliberation, or just unspecified “forever harassment” by NY government, etc.
So they can replace a juror that disagrees with the majority?
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.