[Lazamataz]

Since you asked, neither of the 2 cases you are referring to (Gonzales and Erlinger) are controlling in the Trump case. Otherwise his conviction would be already reversed.

Are you aware of the doctrine of stare decisis and the application of precedence that is incorporated therein?

This Erlinger case, decided by SCOTUS this cycle, reasserts that "juries must be unanimous on each criminal count", a point of law specifically denied by "Judge" Merchan in the Trump trial, who bizarrely instructed the jury that they need not agree on the predicate crime required by New York law.

Thus, Trump's convictions are sure to be overturned once the matter gets out of the corrupted New York State court system.

You undoubtably will either breeze right past these points of law; or you will switch to an unrelated topic; or you will invent an unrecognized legal principle that does not apply.

Based on my legal explanation: Do you still hold that Donald Trump received a fair trial, and in fact was treated with kid gloves?

[kiryandil]

I’m old enough to remember when joesbucks was poo-pooing the notion that there was something wrong with his Joe Biden.

[joesbucks]

I’ve expressed numerous times my beliefs on your last question. So why do you keep asking?

Stare decisis has nothing to do with those 2 cases impacting Trump. So why wasn’t his verdict reversed because of those rulings?