VakAttack

Great news!

I'm sorry this hurts your feelings. Feel free to support substantial.criminal justice reform, I'll stand with you. As it is, this exact type of thing happens to your fellow citizens all the time and has been deemed legal. I just had a judge sentence a guy to 6 years in prison for a violation of probation where the violation was a new misdemeanor charge...where the State dropped the new charge that triggered the violation.

Is that what you're hung up on? That he wasn't charged elsewhere? That's not a requirement of the statute. Each agency is independent and make their own charging decisions. This happens every day to defendants throughout the country.

....I did. I told you exactly what he was convicted of. 34 counts of first degree falsification of business records. He was convicted of falsifying business records to conceal multiple other crimes, namely falsifying other business records, breaking the Federal Election Campaign Act or submitting false information on a tax return.

There are many crimes that can be either misdemeanors or felonies depending on prosecutorial charging decisions. I know exactly what charges he faced, what are you talking about?

34 counts of first degree Falsifying Business Records. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/final-verdict-form-donald-trump-hush-money-trial-nyc/5462717/%3famp=1

Apparently sentencing is scheduled for July 11. As to his penalty, I've never dealt with NY sentencing directly, but I would guess he'll get a term of probation, but no incarceration. In Florida, I would guess most people would pay a trial tax for going to trial (not supposed to be a thing, but it is) and do some jail on the front end, but I think his political position would shield him from jail. The judge has been letting him get away with stuff that would have had most defendants in jail for contempt of court, and I think that's because of who he is. As to what I personally believe, I think we lock up too many nonviolent offenders as is, and I think probation is fine.

Now the appeals process begins.

Guilty on all counts, apparently.

If there's a hung jury on all counts, the DA has the option to try him again, though I personally doubt they would.

I mean, the case that controls was decided in the 1980s. Are you saying it was a plan hatched back then to get Trump 40 years later?

Yes. The political actors in this case have largely broken down as follows from my observations: Democrats and Democrat adjacent nervous that he will be acquitted, but believing firmly he's guilty. MAGA Republicans and adjacent pre-deciding that only a not guilty verdict or a hung jury is valid, a guilty verdict is meaningless, and believing the whole thing is a political witch hunt. This is not helped by the fact that without videos from the courtroom, it's left wide open to bad faith actors taking commonplace criminal practice things and framing them as trying to attack Trump, like the alternate jurors thing. For me, I would say that I THINK he's probably guilty of these charges, but don't think I particularly care one way or the other on what's alleged; I think the Georgia and documents cases are much more consequential.

While I disagree with Turley's assertions (largely), you're 100% right there will be an appeal, and not unfairly; when new or unusual applications of the law come up, you want appeals to clarify for future guidance.

Only because you're choosing to see it this way. I don't see this trial as having any potential political benefit for the Dems or any negative baggage for Trump. I think the only person who is likely to benefit politically is Trump himself if he wins or gets a hung jury. If he's found guilty, people will discount it for the reasons you're claiming now.

These two are easy: the alternates are included in the judge's responses in case they are called to sit in the actual deliberations, they have all the same information. Written instructions apparently aren't allowed in New York, except in certain circumstances and "remain a minefield for judges" which can end up in convictions being overturned if they're given. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/written-jury-instructions-trump-judge.html

Bragg was elected in 2021 and isn't up for re-election until 2025.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are they not supposed to prosecute him because he's a former president? The jury decides if he's guilty or not. How is this an example of the justice system not being applied equally? As a person who participates in the justice system every day, the idea of rich and powerful people facing the justice system is evidence to many of us that's evidence of some equality, since it's typically the poor and powerless who are crushed under the heel of the justice system.

There's a Democrat Senator on trial as we speak.

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/05/29/trump-hush-money-criminal-trial/merchan-speaks-to-the-alternates-00160397 Merchan is now addressing the six alternate jurors, who will play no role in deliberations unless there is a need to substitute them for one of the sitting jurors. “Every single one of you was very engaged,” Merchan said, thanking them for their service. “Alternate number 3, I think you went through several notebooks.” He emphasized that the six alternates must continue to refrain from discussing the case with others since it’s possible they could be needed to fill a spot on the jury. “Please remain with us, there might be a need for you at some point during deliberations,” Merchan said

They are included because they may be needed, but they are not allowed to participate in deliberations with the active jurors. This is the exact purpose of alternate jurors.

No, it's the same law. One of the elements is that he was trying to conceal or commit a new crime. It's not required to limit the charging to one crime he was trying to conceal or commit, they've said he can be guilty if you believe he was trying to conceal or commit crime A OR crime B OR crime C. It's a single element of the crime, but the prosecutor essentially gets three bites at proving that element.

I would guess we'll get multiple verdicts. Guilty to some counts, not guilty to others, and maybe a hung jury on a couple of them. Having only limited access to the actual facts being presented, my guess is they find him guilty on the checks he actually signed, but not on the ones he didn't sign personally.

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I'll try to answer. The jury has to decide that each element of each count of each crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to find him guilty. Obviously there are multiple counts he's facing, some of them for the same charge but for different actions (like one check from April whatever and one check from May whatever; the crime could be under the same statute, but it's its own separate crime because it's a separate action). One of the elements of several of the charges is that he was taking the action to commit or conceal a separate crime. So as to each count of the indictment where that is an element, the jury has to believe that that element (as well as all the other elements of the crime) have been proven for that individual action. Let me try to give an example: Check 1, signed by Donald Trump. Check 2, signed by Eric Trump, but the prosecution is claiming Donald Trump knew what was going on. The jury would look at count 1 and decide whether all the elements of check 1 were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, including whether Trump was doing it to commit or conceal a crime (and they're apparently alleging it could be any of three separate crimes). If they feel all were proven beyond a reasonable doubt (but using he judge's instructions, some felt Trump was trying to commit or conceal crime A, but others felt he was trying to commit or conceal crime B), they should find him guilty of that count. For argument's sake, lets say they found him guilty as to check 1. Then they would go and look at check 2. So lets say they're not fully convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Trump knew what was happening with this check. Maybe they think he knew the check was being filled out, but didn't know where it was going to. Or maybe one juror thinks that, but the other juror thinks he knew where it was going, but didn't know it was for hiding a separate crime. They would find him not guilty as to that count. I hope I was clear here.

Since forever. All the conservative lawyers (looking at you Marco Rubio) who are mischaracterizing this should face sanctions. One of the elements that has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is that he falsified the records to either conceal or commit another crime. The jury has to be unanimous that he falsified the records to commit or conceal another crime, they don't have to be unanimous as to what particular crime it was. It's called charging in the alternative, and defense lawyers often employ a similar strategy when arguing for reasonable doubt. Example: "ladies and gentleman, you don't all have to have the same reasonable doubt. Juror number 1 can have a reasonable doubt as to element 1, juror number 4 can have a reasonable doubt as to element 4" etc, etc. Suffice to say, this is completely normal criminal law practice and jury instructions.

Oh, just Edmond Ruth, Ethan Smith, and Dustin Plott? WTF are we even talking about here?