“They alleged Trump falsified the records to hide another crime, but never specified the other crime”
According to NY law, they don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other crime happened. Using Cohen’s, Pecker’s and some other testimony, they were able to convince the jury the other crime likely happened
“According to NY law, they don’t have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the other crime happened. Using Cohen’s, Pecker’s and some other testimony, they were able to convince the jury the other crime likely happened”
What crime? Still waiting for the statement of particulars. Was there juror unanimity?
What a circumstance to find yourself convicted of 34 felonies, but have no idea what they are. Seems almost unconstitutional...
It was the testimony of a liar, a prostitute and a Pecker that convinced the jury.
Not disagreeing with you, but that seems literally insane. If true, that law should be taken up to the Supreme Court as unconstitutional under the 6th Amendment. Since, as I understand it, the whole "falsifying business documents" is predicated on the commission of some other felony, it seems pure madness to be able to convict when the other felony has not been proven.