Four-Four-Four: Based on Judge Merchan's Instructions, It will only take four jurors to convict Trump

Hotair ^ | 05/30/2024 | Jazz Shaw

[TexasGator]

The underlying crime is not one of the counts he is charged with.

[TexasGator]

What is your point?

[heartwood]

The jury must find that the prosecution proved intent, mens rea. Plenty of New Yorkers believe Trump is mens rea personified, so they might skip the proof part, accepting it as axiomatic.

One possible theory of intent is that business records were falsified to conceal the crime of falsifying business records.

[mikelets456]

Soon he will take the jurors completely out of the equation and Judge that Trump is guilty of...ummm...something.

At what point do “we the people” intervene? Once we cross this line, there’s no going back.

[Coronal]

Right here.

https://nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf

Take a good look.

[Delta 21]

This is literally “Throwing the book at President Trump”.

Any crime in that book you may feel like you think he may have thought of breaking, He’s GUILTY!

[gitmo]

Trump is guilty until proven executed.

[Coronal]

The point is that conviction on any charge requires a unanimous verdict of the full jury panel. Four jurors won’t be enough to get a conviction. The piece linked is misleading.

[heartwood]

I have read nothing about the jury being divided into groups of four to consider the possibilities. I thought Merchan simply meant if some of them think it was one crime, and some another, it’s fine as long as every one of them think there was some secondary crime. Could be three,could be seven, could overlap, four was a hypothetical example.

[heartwood]

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.

[Eagles6]

Could this corrupt judge have PDJT handcuffed and thrown in prison, in the event of a conviction?

[Domestic Church]

Remove this guy from the bench

[Coronal]

But they do have to unanimously agree that he committed some violation of the law.

[Yo-Yo]

The judge gave the jurors the unheard-of option of picking any one of three crimes that were "concealed" by the entry of "false business records" and said that all twelve of them didn't necessarily have to agree on which of the three crimes was committed.

How is this not a Fifth Amendment violation to not know what charges are being alleged?

It's the prosecutor's job to choose what crime was committed, and to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it occurred. It's not up to the jury to choose "one from column A and one from column B" during deliberations.

How can one mount an effective defense when the charges aren't specified upon arraignment?

[heartwood]

They have to unanimously find that he falsified business records with the INTENT to conceal another crime, but they do not have to agree on what that other crime was, just that he INTENDED to do something unlawful.

[SMARTY]

"Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is.”

Huhhhhh!!? As if they COULD!!!!

[gitmo]

But they do have to unanimously agree that he committed some unnamed violation of the law.

[Liz]

This is ludicrous. Law Professor Jonathan Turley writes from inside Merchan’s court:
<><>The jury has been given little substantive judicial assistance to consider,
<><>Merchan even denied the jury a legal expert’s input,
<><>that there was no federal election violation,
<><>that required dismissal for (a) lack of evidence, or, (b) lack of a recognizable crime.

[Coronal]

Where in the jury instructions is this stated?

[SaxxonWoods]

I don’t see a non-unanimous or especially a non-majority decision impressing the public. Even the libs will find it hard to glorify.