Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: spacejunkie2001; Tuxedo

I’d already added you to the list by default assuming you’d ask to be taken off if you didn’t want to be on the list. LOL

BTW, People on X are pointing out that the Erlinger v. United States decision today could have ramifications with regards to the Trump New York case. Tuxedo had made that point up-thread.

In 6-3 decision issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that 1) a jury must be unanimous in its findings on criminal convictions, and 2) sentencing enhancements cannot be arbitrarily implemented by judicial fiat.


115 posted on 06/21/2024 11:31:51 AM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: CFW

Wow, that’s very interesting. So does that mean Trump’s legal team can file suit based on this ruling perhaps and get it over turn based on that?


118 posted on 06/21/2024 11:48:20 AM PDT by spacejunkie2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

To: CFW; Lakeside Granny

In 6-3 decision issued today, the Supreme Court ruled that 1) a jury must be unanimous in its findings on criminal convictions, and 2) sentencing enhancements cannot be arbitrarily implemented by judicial fiat.


Hallelujah!


126 posted on 06/21/2024 1:32:44 PM PDT by Jane Long (The role of the GOP: to write sharply-worded letters as America becomes a communist hell-hole.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson