..or the candy gram shark ? 
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.
That judge is completely corrupt. Evil man.
He is operating like a communist criminal judge! Soon, it will take just ONE juror to convict.
Is there no judicial oversight on how corrupt this judge is??????
Read the instructions. They clearly state that conviction on any charge requires a unanimous vote.
How will Merchan stop Trump from appealing ? A Trillion dollar bond ? LOL
RE: They clearly state that conviction on any charge requires a unanimous vote.
Sure, a unanimous vote of any group of 4. Not a unanimous group of 12.
Judge Merchan has already decided that Trump is guilty of innumerous unspecified crimes.
Just let him pronounce his sentence and be done with it.
That's what the Leftists want.
They have not defined the ‘crime’ that was committed.
They have produced no evidence that a crime was committed.
All testimony indicated that everything that was done was legal.
But the prosecution wants to tie it all together with a big red ribbon and say that even though all these things were and are legal, they add up to an illegality that we will not name.........................
The secondary crime - the one th e false business records facilitated - was never charged as a crime. Prosecution said, it was this, or that, or something else, take your pick, but never charged it.
That someone can be charged with conspiracy to commit a crime, but the crime itself never charged to anyone is astonishing.
I hope there are some jurors with enough common sense and enough staunch courage to hold against the others. Two, at least. Merchan could remove one, two would be laughable.
“Read the instructions. They clearly state that conviction on any charge requires a unanimous vote.”
Page 31: Jury is not required to be unanimous on underlying crime.
The judge should at least be honest and come out and say if we can agree that we don’t like Trump, then he is guilty
We shoulda done been shooting by now! This just insane liberal crap!
“Find me the man, and I’ll find the crime.”
From the instructions:
“Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must agree to it.”
How does “each and every juror” equal four?
From that page:
“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.”
From page 49:
“Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous; that is, each and every juror must agree to it. “
Under our law, although the People must prove an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided, or concealed....
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.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.
They even named all of Cankles laws that she broke 1 by 1 but in the end she didnt even get charged!
Corrupt judges better be very ware of the thoughts that circulate thru the magnificent brain of President Trump as he is put thru these legal hoops with fire for the circus that is the Biden presidency. Me thinks their glory days may be counting down.
..or the candy gram shark ?
RE: How does “each and every juror” equal four?
The Jury was divided into groups of 4. Each group is given SPECIFIC felony charges to consider, not all 34 of them.
Therefore, even if the other 8 declare Trump to be innocent on the counts they are considering, it only takes 4 to unanimously agree on one specific count to declare Trump guilty on that count of FELONY. Remember, Alvin Bragg has a 34-count FELONY indictment.
The odds are quite high for this to happen.
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.