Posted on 05/29/2024 5:25:36 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Former legal adviser to Michael Cohen, Robert Costello, said Wednesday that the judge in former President Donald Trump's hush money trial seems determined to get a conviction.
"It seems to me based upon my personal experience in the court, watching him, and listening to him frankly make up some accusations about me that just never happened, that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to get a conviction," Costello said on the "Just the News, No Noise" TV show.
New York Judge Juan Merchan told the jury in the Trump trial that they do not need complete unanimity to convict the former president. He highlighted specifically that if the jurors did not agree on what the crime was, but did agree a crime was committed, he would treat it as a unanimous verdict.
Trump faces 34 charges of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money payment involving porn star Stormy Daniels. He has repeatedly criticized the trial as a whole and the judge specifically.
The trial for the hush money case began last month, which made Trump the first former president to stand trial for an alleged crime. Jury deliberations for the trial began this week and a verdict is expected in the coming days.
Costello was a witness in the trial and argued that the whole case was just election interference.
"They're not concerned at all if this case gets reversed on appeal, because that appellate decision won't take place until after the election," he said. "In other words, it's election interference."
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
What’s the crime again?....
That’s been apparent from the beginning.
Wetback “judgey” from Bogata Columbia wants the ass of an America president. POS.
You think?🙄
If the judge thinks the jury’s going to go the wrong way, he’ll declare a mistrial.
Well, there are 34 charges. Sounds like if they can get one juror to find guilty on charge 6, another on charge 13, etc. Trump is guilty of all of them. Instead of conning the entire country, the judge should be out on some street corner. “Pick a card, any card...”
not agree on what the crime was, but did agree a crime was committed,
\/
how can you agree a crime was committed
if you dont know what the crime was
??
these are either a pack of evil liars or morons or insane.
my bet is all 3.
spit.
I’m very worried
At the beginning I wasn’t to worried as I thought this would hang
But this 4-4-4 which I don’t understand
I’m still under the impression that to convict they still need a total of 12 guilty
And that 1 non guilty will hang this outcome
That is still correct until which time the judge decides it isn't.
Sounds like South American jury instructions.
Gee, no kidding?!?!?
Merchan is part of the prosecution in this corrupt embarrassment, which isn’t his job as a judge.
He deserves tar, feathers, & a rope around his neck.
Which is still too humane for this POS.
Costello didn’t do Trump any favors with his belligerence on the stand.
It is hard to understand and try to explain. But this is it in a nutshell:
In a normal criminal trial, there would be a crime attached to every charge in the indictment. In the Trump trial, there is no crime. There are only multiple allegations by the prosecutor, some of which never were part of the trial testimony, but were only in the prosecutor's closing argument.
The judge boiled them down to three alleged crimes, none of which were actual charges in the indictment against Trump. Normally, jurors must make a unanimous decision on each charge, but the judge said these jurors do not need to unanimously agree on any of them to find the defendant guilty. They essentially can mix and match to come up with 12 guilty verdicts in aggregate. Not 12 for each separate charge, but any number for all the charges that add up to one combined 12.
Not only is this confusing as h3ll, but it is also severely unconstitutional.
Ok thank you
Ok So it means he still needs a combination of 12 guilty but instead of have one indictment there are 3 indictments
The more indictments the more probability to sway a juror.
I’m starting to understand
I thought he only needed 4 to put trump in jail and not 12
Nevertheless he still needs a total of 12 spread over 3 indictments
I’m still very very worried
Although Desantis was my man I want to see trump exact his vengeance
After the verdict is handed down, I wonder if the Defense will want to question the jury to see whether they agree with the verdict, and if not, what their differences of opinion were. Will the Judge refuse to allow inquiry into the jury thoughts on whether they agree with the verdict?
This would bring out whether the jury agreed that the predicate crimes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or whether they were winging it.
I'm pretty sure that is what it means, but we can't be 100% certain since the judge is so blatantly crooked and a leftist. As for your support of DeSantis, no worries. I'm Trump all the way, but also am not one who gets all huffy because another person's views do not match my own in all respects. :)
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.