Posted on 05/30/2024 7:37:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The more time we have to look through Judge Juan Merchan's byzantine jury instructions in Donald Trump's "hush money" trial in Manhattan, the worse they look. The vague nature of the instructions has even led to disputes among legal analysts who have struggled to make sense of the case from the beginning. At Townhall, our colleague Matt Vespa has a good rundown of one of the most glaring problems with the instructions. 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. In other words, he appears to be opening the door to a conviction without a unanimous finding by the jury. Matt warns that we "should be prepared for a conviction."
The jury is deliberating, and we should be prepared for a conviction. That’s not to say there isn’t reasonable doubt all over the hush money trial involving Donald Trump, but this whole trial was a circus from the start so it’s unsurprising that its finish was more of a clown show. As Katie wrote this morning, none of this is normal. The judge’s instructions to the jury is aberrant, with some folks commenting on social media that these guidelines for the jury wouldn’t be legal in Zimbabwe. It will only take four jurors to convict Trump [emphasis mine]:
According to legal experts, Merchan's standards for a conviction are abnormal and do not require jurors to reach a unanimous decision on the charges. Further, jurors don't have to determine what crime was committed.
"Judge Merchan has ruled that the jury does not have to agree on what that crime is. The jury could split into three groups of four on which of the three crimes were being concealed and Merchan will still treat it as a unanimous verdict," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who has been inside the courtroom, writes. "The jury has been given little substantive information on these crimes, and Merchan has denied a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation. This case should have been dismissed for lack of evidence or a cognizable crime."
This is just wrong. Not being an attorney myself, you don't need to take my word for it. You can rely on the feedback from eminent Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who is quoted in the excerpt above. That didn't stop the Associated Press from rushing out and "fact-checking" the people criticizing the jury instructions. They found the claim that Merchan told the jury that they didn't need a unanimous finding of guilt to convict Trump is "false." They went through Olympic-level verbal gymnastics to declare that Merchan is still requiring all twelve jurors to find Trump guilty on any of the 34 charges. That's technically true, but what they seem to be willfully ignoring is the reality that they don't all need to find Trump guilty of the same crime.
Let's see if we can briefly sketch this out in terms that even we laypersons should be able to digest. In order to reach a guilty verdict, Merchan wants the jurors to first find that the fraudulent business records were created with the intent to conceal another crime. (Those would be the records of the payments made to Stormy Daniels.) Then, if they believe that to be true, they have to decide if Trump did so to cover up one or more of three things:
Both phases of this two-step dance are flawed. First of all, the falsifying business records claim consists of a set of alleged misdemeanors that were already past the statute of limitations. Therefore, Trump can't be tried or convicted of them. However, Merchan wants the jury to be allowed to "believe" that Trump is guilty of those charges. That's not how our system of justice works. The prosecution is claiming that Trump falsified the records and Trump is saying he didn't. That's how most criminal cases begin. The next step would be to charge him and convict him, but they can't do that because of the statute. You can't base your assumption of a second crime on the "belief" that the first crime took place. Like anyone else, Trump is innocent until proven guilty of those misdemeanors.
But let's say for a moment that you could, just for the sake of argument. Merchan wants to open the door to any of the jurors then finding that Trump broke one of the three laws I listed above. Those are three different crimes. In the hypothetical example that Merchan offered, four jurors could find Trump guilty of the first crime, four saying he committed the second, and four concluding that he committed the third. But in each case, the other eight jurors would not have voted to convict. You need all twelve to agree on innocence or guilt, so Trump would therefore not be found guilty on any of the three charges.
I've never spent a day in law school, but even I can follow along with Turley's analysis. And the question of needing a unanimous verdict is not in doubt. Just go back and look at the Supreme Court case of Ramos v. Louisiana. The court explicitly stated that all twelve jurors must reach the same conclusion. (Louisiana tried to get away with a 10-2 ruling in Ramos.) This fiasco in Manhattan has completely fallen apart, but I fear that Juan Merchan may still realize his dream of getting a conviction, at least until he is completely overturned on appeal.
The instructions refer to three other offenses: violation of the the Federal Election Campaign Act, falsification of other business records, or violation of tax laws. Not “some unnamed violation of the law.”.
I am so disappointed in congress.. Impotent!!!!
DEFEND OUR PRESIDENT!!!
And all he@@ is gonna happen if they take Trump in.
The prosecutor and the judge both knew from the beginning that any conviction would be overturned on appeal.
The entire trial was about keeping Trump off the campaign trail and if all went well giving him a political black eye.
That is why the obtuse jury instructions.
The judge wants to have a criminal conviction on the record for Trump during the campaign.
Even when the conviction is overturned Trump will forever have conviction on his record as Nancy would and will say.
If Trump is convicted the judge and prosecutor will have hit it out of the park even when the conviction is overturned. Anything less is a win. They have already won from their perspective
But Merchan considers it unanimous as long as each juror thinks that at least one of the 3 underlying crimes was intended to be covered up.
We need to get to where this is heading, quickly.
After securing a pledge to not allow extradition from Gov DeSantis, Trump should get in his plane and fly back to Florida, under the protection of FL LEO and militia.
Then file an emergency appeal to SCOTUS for deprivation of civil rights under the US Constitution, by way of conspiracy.
Gov DeSantis should then order all able-bodied men into the Florida militia, and set the stage to bring all this BS to a screeching stop.
They’re convicting him of different things.
Clearly a Violation of the sixth amendment.
SCOTUS rulings say the Jury must be unanimous on the crime committed.
NY supported the Landmark SCOTUS case that applies.
Which flies in the face of SCOTUS rulings on State & Federal Trials.
The SCOTUS case I believe you’re referencing is Richardson v. United States.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/526/813/
It involved the federal Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute. It doesn’t apply to state law.
this whole trial just makes the point that the judge and DA are not qualified for their jobs.
This trial in and of itself is proof that they should at least be removed. Criminal charges should be brought against them.
Bragg (slime ball) insists the payments were an illegal payment for the Trump campaign. Thus, he should have used campaign funds instead of his own money. If he did this it would be a clear violation of campaign laws, that is using campaign money for personal use. The FEC would have fined him just as they did Hillary Clinton. In addition this would be a federal matter and not a state matter.
Trump has the financial ability to fight this in court. The average citizen stands no chance in a federal court that has unlimited funds with which to litigate.
Ramos vs Louisiana
The Judge violated the law at least four different ways.
One example:
“to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor”
He was prohibited from calling witnesses in his favor regarding Election and Campaign Finance Law.
Violation of the Constitution
How does “each and every juror” equal four?
Because they never stated an defined crime that had been committed.
I don't think it was ever proven that Trump was aware of the Stormy Daniels extortion scheme until after the election. Cohen tried to use a 96-second phone call as evidence but that turned out to be about something else.
Merchan, by allowing Stormy Daniels' irrelevant testimony, has millions of people believing that Trump had an affair with her, for which there is absolutely no evidence (beyond her allegation), some of which will refuse to vote for him because they think he is a bad man because of the affair.
I thought Trump was a bad man back in the early 80s when he was crowing in the tabloids about his affairs and his wealth.
Doesn’t mean he’s guilty of this charged conspiracy to intend to commit something or the other.
There has been the most astonishing collusion of state and news media to take him down.
I don’t like many things about Trump. That does not begin to compare to the corruption involved in the anti-Trump movement. Rule of law, honest intelligence, honest reporting mean nothing to the people trying to stop him. They have become what they claim they are fighting: tyrants, corrupting tyrants.
I was aware of who Donald Trump was but didn’t pay much attention to him before 2015 and never watched his TV shows. So I wasn’t aware that he had crowed about his affairs. It wouldn’t surprise me because he does tend to brag, and most people with his wealth have lots of opportunities to have affairs.
So if for each of the 3 alleged underlying crimes the jury votes 8-4 that Trump was not guilty, but the 4 naysayers on each were different then the corrupt Judge says Trump is guilty.
The underlying crime of which Trump is guilty is that of being Trump. A Bill of Attainder.
Something like that. But also knowing that the statute of limitations long passed for the misdemeanors that they are trying to turn into one felony conviction by linking any one of them into a conspiracy that never happened. The judge said the imaginary conspiracy didn't have to ever have occurred. President Trump contemplating it in his mind was enough to convict him of a felony.
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.