[Terabitten]

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.

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.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

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.

Yes, it sounds insane to me. Other posters are telling me that such prosecutions are completely normal. I don't understand why ethical lawyers and judges would want the law to work that way. Maybe it's some kind of legal trick that was originally used against terrorists or mobsters.

[Armscor38]

“Not disagreeing with you, but that seems literally insane. “

It does seem weird but according to the articles I’ve read, that is the way it is