The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#18,131
#18,131
The “judge said it doesn’t have to be unanimous” narrative seems fabricated to me but it’s convoluted enough that it’s understandable for some people who aren’t law professors (*cough* Johnathan Turley).

The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

Haven’t paid attention to this trial since Daniels’ first or second day of testimony. This thread turning into a “totally going to be an acquittal” echo chamber has me mildly interested to see the result. Not sure if it will be an acquittal just because of jury composition. But if it is a...
www.volnation.com www.volnation.com

As I posted here 👆, New York case law is pretty clear that there is no actus reus requirement that the state prove another crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The commission, aiding, or concealment of another crime is not an element of the offense.

The intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime is the element. As long as the jurors are unanimous that that was the defendant’s intent, they do not have to agree about what crime was intended to be committed, aided, or concealed.

It’s nowhere near the same level of stupid as “they tried to kill Trump” or even “Omg the judge yelled at the witness for being rude” but, to me, it seems like the portion of the instruction is probably lawful and not the aberration that it’s being made out to be. He definitely did not tell them that their verdict did not need to be unanimous.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL and volfanhill
#18,133
#18,133
volbound1700 said:
Based on your comments, it sounds like you did not go to the University of Tennessee. Out of curiosity, what are your connections to UTK? You seem to care about the sports because I see you posted in the sports boards.
Click to expand...


I went to UT as an undergraduate student-athlete, and then to Columbia for graduate school.

Why does it sound like I didn't go to Tennessee? Ha, ha---I can guess why you made that comment. I'm not from Tennessee. You do realize
that most of the people who post on these pages did not go to Tennessee or any college.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#18,134
#18,134
turbovol said:
I went to UT as an undergraduate student-athlete, and then to Columbia for graduate school.

Why does it sound like I didn't go to Tennessee? Ha, ha---I can guess why you made that comment. I'm not from Tennessee. You do realize
that most of the people who post on these pages did not go to Tennessee or any college.
Click to expand...

I just hadn't seen you talk about it until now. Then again, I am not on here that often so I may have missed it.
 
#18,135
#18,135
turbovol said:
I went to UT as an undergraduate student-athlete, and then to Columbia for graduate school.

Why does it sound like I didn't go to Tennessee? Ha, ha---I can guess why you made that comment. I'm not from Tennessee. You do realize
that most of the people who post on these pages did not go to Tennessee or any college.
Click to expand...

What sport did you play at UT?
 
#18,139
#18,139
Sudden Impact said:
See you are very aggressive. I am not FOS but believe what you want to believe. The procedures, dissemination and disposition of Classified Documents is not for the public to know. The gov links are a watered down version and it was intentional.
Click to expand...
Then prove it...post something showing either the instructions or that your were in a position in a POTUS immediate area and have that knowledge..you'd demand nothing less from anyone else making claims like yours.
 
#18,141
#18,141
RockyTop85 said:
The “judge said it doesn’t have to be unanimous” narrative seems fabricated to me but it’s convoluted enough that it’s understandable for some people who aren’t law professors (*cough* Johnathan Turley).

The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

Haven’t paid attention to this trial since Daniels’ first or second day of testimony. This thread turning into a “totally going to be an acquittal” echo chamber has me mildly interested to see the result. Not sure if it will be an acquittal just because of jury composition. But if it is a...
www.volnation.com www.volnation.com

As I posted here 👆, New York case law is pretty clear that there is no actus reus requirement that the state prove another crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The commission, aiding, or concealment of another crime is not an element of the offense.

The intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime is the element. As long as the jurors are unanimous that that was the defendant’s intent, they do not have to agree about what crime was intended to be committed, aided, or concealed.

It’s nowhere near the same level of stupid as “they tried to kill Trump” or even “Omg the judge yelled at the witness for being rude” but, to me, it seems like the portion of the instruction is probably lawful and not the aberration that it’s being made out to be. He definitely did not tell them that their verdict did not need to be unanimous.
Click to expand...
Where do you see the SCOTUS case Richardson v US 1999 coming in to play.
 
#18,142
#18,142
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Click to expand...



That is very odd to me. In my own practice every trial I've been in the jury was given a copy. I saw some discussion of the issue this morning and apparently it is the accepted practice in New York not to send the instructions back with the jury. Has been the subject of many appeals and evidently the appellate courts have repeatedly sustained that approach.

I can actually see both sides of the debate. On the one hand, having the instructions might allow jury members to more fully understand the legal question posed. On the other hand -- and I have certainly seen this happen -- you can have jurors disagree on what they each think the instructions, line by line, mean, i.e. they can fixate on some sentence, some turn of phrase, and miss the forest for the trees.

I prefer it the way I'm used to, overall, but there is no actual legal error in doing it this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol, KptVFL and volbound1700
#18,144
#18,144
lawgator1 said:
That is very odd to me. In my own practice every trial I've been in the jury was given a copy. I saw some discussion of the issue this morning and apparently it is the accepted practice in New York not to send the instructions back with the jury. Has been the subject of many appeals and evidently the appellate courts have repeatedly sustained that approach.

I can actually see both sides of the debate. On the one hand, having the instructions might allow jury members to more fully understand the legal question posed. On the other hand -- and I have certainly seen this happen -- you can have jurors disagree on what they each think the instructions, line by line, mean, i.e. they can fixate on some sentence, some turn of phrase, and miss the forest for the trees.

I prefer it the way I'm used to, overall, but there is no actual legal error in doing it this way.
Click to expand...

That law seems very questionable to me from a Constitutional standpoint (curious to know the New York Constitution as that should be more relevant). Trump has the resources to defend himself but if you think broader towards clients who don't have that resources, it makes you really wonder about the fairness of the New York court system.

Our country already has a recent history of unfair judicial process for indigent people based on past practices and this seems like an open door for that to happen in NY.
 
#18,145
#18,145
whodeycin85 said:
Then prove it...post something showing either the instructions or that your were in a position in a POTUS immediate area and have that knowledge..you'd demand nothing less from anyone else making claims like yours.
Click to expand...
All you want is validation, sorry you will have to believe what you want "I know nothing" and that will always be your take on this. I justify this and I justify the next question and it becomes a 360 degree cycle with some of you.
 
#18,146
#18,146
Sudden Impact said:
All you want is validation, sorry you will have to believe what you want "I know nothing" and that will always be you take on this. I justify this and I justify the next question and it becomes a 360 degree cycle with some of you. No.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying your wrong, your being asked to prove your claims, everyone else has cited links. Yours if well you have to take my word for it...would you take Trumps word for it without proof??? Obviously not..and his opinion of just thinking it does have merit according to some lawyers...so back you claims up or STFU and quit whining.
 
#18,147
#18,147
volbound1700 said:
That law seems very questionable to me from a Constitutional standpoint (curious to know the New York Constitution as that should be more relevant). Trump has the resources to defend himself but if you think broader towards clients who don't have that resources, it makes you really wonder about the fairness of the New York court system.

Our country already has a recent history of unfair judicial process for indigent people based on past practices and this seems like an open door for that to happen in NY.
Click to expand...


Why would that be of state or federal constitutional dimension?
 
#18,149
#18,149
Cod said:
Here is one of the problems, Trump is crooked Poor Biden just has dementia.... Biden is just as big if not bigger crook than Trump. He's been in politics for 50 ****ing years, he's corrupt to the core.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. But his dementia is a bigger factor currently.
 
#18,150
#18,150
whodeycin85 said:
Where do you see the SCOTUS case Richardson v US 1999 coming in to play.
Click to expand...
Just skimmed it.
This case, Richardson, interprets a specific statute and so the holding applies narrowly to that statute, not broadly to all statutes that mention another crime.

It does do a good job of explaining what I was trying to describe in my other post:

“Calling a particular kind of fact an "element" carries certain legal consequences. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U. S. 224, 239 (1998). The consequence that matters for this case is that a jury in a federal criminal case cannot convict unless it unanimously finds that the Government has proved each element. Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 369-371 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring); Andres v. United States, 333 U. S. 740, 748 (1948); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 31(a).

The question before us arises because a federal jury need not always decide unanimously which of several possible sets of underlying brute facts make up a particular element, say, which of several possible means the defendant used to commit an element of the crime. Schad v. Arizona, 501 U. S. 624, 631-632 (1991) (plurality opinion); Andersen v. United States, 170 U. S. 481, 499-501 (1898). Where, for example, an element of robbery is force or the threat of force, some jurors might conclude that the defendant used a knife to create the threat; others might conclude he used a gun. But that disagreement—a disagreement about means—would not matter as long as all 12 jurors unanimously concluded that the Government had proved the necessary related element, namely, that the defendant had threatened force. See McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433, 449 (1990) (Blackmun, J., concurring).

In this case, we must decide whether the statute's phrase "series of violations" refers to one element, namely a "series," in respect to which the "violations" constitute the underlying brute facts or means, or whether those words *818 create several elements, namely the several "violations," in respect to each of which the jury must agree unanimously and separately.”

First bold part: What I’m saying is that “another crime” as used in the New York statute looks to be more like a “brute fact” than an “element” and that is consistent with how the NY Appellate Division has treated it.

Second bold part: this is where it’s clear it’s an issue of statutory interpretation. “Jury must be unanimous as to the elements” is the constitutional rule. Whether something is an element or a “brute fact” is a matter of statutory interpretation. So since this is a different statute, it could lead to a different outcome. I think New York’s high court, whatever they call it, is who gets to decide the meaning of their statutes, not SCOTUS, but I’m less certain about that when it’s tangential to a constitutional rule.

Also of note: he’s very careful to repeatedly mention *in federal cases* when citing the rule of unanimity. That has since been applied to the states, but I think it only happened in the past 5 years or so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top