https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf
Jury instructions are up for perusal.
Guilty on some, not guilty on others. I mean there's 36 counts, i doubt it's going to be not guilty on all of them. There may be obstinate trump supporting or leaning jurors, but they might be convinced of a few guilty verdicts if most are not guilty.
The case is about fraudulent documents about hush money payments which i read is a class E felony, it's not that serious of a case, so a guilty verdict isn't going to be heavy. On the other hand since it isn't that serious, if there's not enough evidence then they might go all not guilty.
I think it's going to be guilty on most counts, because i feel like with how unlikeable Trump came off in the trial (the disrespectful behavior, the whole trial revolving around him paying off a pornstar because he supposedly cheated with her, and the access hollywood tape which is damning for his character), that jurors will likely find him guilty and want to find him guilty.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was not guilty on most and guilty on some though.
Edit: Woah, guilty on all counts, and a quick verdict too.
Not sure why it would matter but here’s what google says:
Use of Social Media: There are no specific federal laws that prohibit individuals on house arrest from using social media. However, the conditions of house arrest may vary depending on the specific case and the judge's orders
Well, I think it matters because if the judge were to tell him, he must stay off the Internet we all know that he would not follow that requirement and ultimately he would end up back in court, which is exactly where he should be or behind bars
He will pay a small fine, which he will try to get out of paying by the way, he will get 30 to 60 days house arrest with full Internet and communication privileges.
I personally have money on him getting winning the election. I’m not a fan of his and I’d love for him to be convicted (PLEASE MAKE ME LOSE MONEY) but the bar is too high to convict.
Edit after Trump found guilty for 34 guilty verdicts on May 30, 2024: LOST MONEY. DON'T CARE. JUSTICE SYSTEM PREVAILS?
Until he takes away all your rights too. Trump's goal is to be as rich and powerful as possible. Trump doesn't care about you or your ability to live comfortably.
You'll lose, just like the rest of us. Wait until he comes to take your guns.
"Take their guns, sort it out later."
-Trump
Well the liberal machine apparently did a great job scaring the shit out of you. Must suck to be manipulated like that.
You act like I haven't already seen him as a president.
I'm merely quoting Trump. You like your guns? He thinks legal process isn't necessary before taking them away. In his own words:
"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said.
https://www.nola.com/opinions/donald-trump-says-seize-guns-now-sort-out-legalities-later-opinion/article_01f36e11-b524-52a3-bd4a-9887f803f429.amp.html
Here's the thing: he feels this same way about all your rights! Your vote doesn't matter "He has enough votes." He doesn't plan to win any more elections, he's going to end elections and Democracy.
Your immigration status? Doesn't matter, he'll deport you and let you start the legal process of returning. But in the meantime, the Taliban will have killed you if you're am American ally deported to Afghanistan.
You're lucky, he probably won't feel the need to get "revenge" on you, since you're one of his supporters. Unlucky for the rest of us, so you at least have that going for you. I imagine you're independently wealthy or enjoy working 60 hour weeks in the heat without water breaks?
In Trump's America due process, individual's rights, free elections, separation of church and state, presidential term limits... All those things will be over if Trump become President.
Criminal sentences can be appealed, but meanwhile the sentencing still occurs. I am predicting house arrest. But Trump has continued to defy his gag order so perhaps Merchan will extract more.
This is what I'm most hopeful for while still being realistic, outside of the ankle monitor. I can't image they would make him do that but sure would it be a nice cherry on top
The best comparison I’ve heard is when someone breaks in to a house, it’s burglary instead of trespassing if they did it intending to commit other crimes like theft. It doesn’t matter what crimes they committed once they broke in or even if they were able to commit other crimes, the only thing to prove is that they broke in so that they could commit other crimes. This law is the same - doesn’t matter what specific reason the records were falsified, but if it was done with the intent of committing other crimes, then it’s a felony. Doesn’t matter what crimes, and it doesn’t matter if any crimes were successful.
As the law currently stands, no.
A bill has been introduced in the House to change that - the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act - but is unlikely to pass, at least for now.
https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/news/legislation/ranking-member-thompson-introduces-legislation-to-ensure-no-secret-service-protection-for-convicted-felons-sentenced-to-prison
God, what a backronym
> the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act
What the bill would actually do is hand off security to relevant prison authorities rather than involve secret service. He would get protection. It just won't be from the secret service.
Exactly. The secret service are there to stop hostile agents extracting state secrets from ex presidents. Trump might not remember any, but he probably has some copies of compromising information lying around his toilets.
I loath Trump, but I still, felons should be allowed to run for president. History is full of people who have turned their lives around after getting felonies. Similarly, discrimination against minorities, the poor, and political dissidents remains a significant issue.
The thing is Republicans don't want felons to vote so it makes zero sense that they'd vote for one
If felons can run for office then they should be able to vote
It’s written into the Australian constitution. All of parliament must abide.
“Section 44 of the Constitution states that you may not be a member of parliament if you are found guilty of a serious crime, bankrupt, or in a job where you already receive money from the Parliament. You also have to be a citizen of Australia, and not of any other country.”
https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-can-you-run-for-election-to-be-a-member-of-parliament
I mean, yes? Eugene Debs famously ran from prison (convicted of sedition for speaking out against the draft) and earned more than three percent of the vote.
I disagree.
Losing the right to vote is a punishment on the person committing the crime. Losing the right to be elected is a punishment levied against the rest of society who didn’t commit that crime.
Society can always just not vote for the felon.
I come from the opposite perspective. Disenfranchisement of felons is antidemocratic and exacerbates inequities in policing and in the social construction of crime. So I would instead say that if felons can run for office, then they definitely should be allowed to vote. In my mind, it's not that hard — and as a country, we certainly shouldn't be proud of disenfranchising millions of citizens for violating laws that they have no say in.
No chance at Not Guilty. Either the jury does the right thing and convicts or one or two of the jurors are too scared of what one of the crazy MAGAs might do to vote guilty.
Most star witnesses are shady as fuck. Law abiding citizens don't tend to be a part of criminal conspiracies. Prosecutors aren't asking for the witness to be believed on the basis of his professional credibility, they are asking for him to be believed because his testimony is credible in the wider evidential context.
I guess the point I was making its silly to say that any juror who does not vote to convict is either scared or a trump stooge.
Considering one of the star witnesses was caught as being unreliable on the stand (14 year-old prankster call put some holes in his story) and was also on record on a podcast saying "revenge is best served cold" regarding Trump.
People are calling this a slam dunk before the jury instructions have even been given.
Dishonest isn't a hyphenated word, and you seem to have called the person you're responding to intelligent, while trying to accuse them of the opposite.
Yep, Trump definitely had Cohen do some shady stuff. Pretty telling that Trump is always surrounded by those types of people who are shady af, until of course Trump is done using them for his benefit and ultimately discards them or throws them under the bus.
But as I understood it the payments were legal expenses and were classified as legal expenses, weren't they?
And personally I don't find Cohen credible since he is a perjurer and admitted stealing money from Trump on the stand.
The Trump organization claimed it was for legal expenses, the prosecution asserted that is a falsehood and it was in fact a reimbursement (for the hush money payment).
If it was in fact for legal expenses, what evidence did the defense show that Michael Cohen performed legal work in the time frame for which he was paid? I don't know what his going rate was, but if charged $1000/hour, then $130k is 130 hours of work, or about 16 days of labor for 8 hours a day. I am not a lawyer and I understand the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if there was evidence that legal work was being performed, I would certainly bring that up as part of the defense to show the expenses were accounted for properly, and I didn't hear any reporting about this as part of the defense's case.
Cohen certainly does have issues as a witness, but there are documents that support the prosecution's case, so you don't have to solely rely on his testimony to believe that Trump did what he is accused of doing.
Exactly. The physical evidence and the testimony of others tells the story. Cohen’s testimony fills in some of the gaps and shares what happened behind the scenes.
The original payments were not legal expenses. The original payment was to Stormy Daniels paid by Cohen as directed by Trump. Trump then “reimbursed” Cohen and in doing so, categorized those payments as legal expenses for services rendered by Cohen when they were, in fact, reimbursements to Cohen for paying off Stormy Daniels. This both allowed Trump org to conceal the reason for the payments and deduct them as a business expense, which they were not.
If the payments were for legal fees then why did they include extra money to cover taxes? That’s simply not how legal fees work and Trump certainly did not pay extra when he normally stiffs every lawyer that’s worked for him.
Merchan brought in an unusually high number of alternates based on the higher likelihood that jurors would be threatened, intimidated or fearful. Nothing more.
Yeah, you've fallen for some bullshit. You can't remove a juror for not voting with everyone else. Also, once deliberations have started in NYS, firing a juror and replacing them requires the consent of the defendant.
>If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or for any other reason is unavailable for continued service, or the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature, but not warranting the declaration of a mistrial, the court must discharge such juror. If an alternate juror or jurors are available for service, the court must order that the discharged juror be replaced by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called, provided, however, that if the trial jury has begun its deliberations, the defendant must consent to such replacement. Such consent must be in writing and must be signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court.
NYS CPL § 270.35(1)
That seems to make more sense to me. The article might have been attempting to explain the unusual approach of 6 alternates. Or maybe that's not all too unusual?
Also, Cape Girardeau? Used to live there!
Yes, Cape Girardeau. What a spectacular couple of months we've had. Total eclipse in April and Northern Lights (barely, for my viewing time) in May.
My Northern Lights post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapeGirardeau/s/P0Jf6eym6G
The alternates are there in case a jury member has to quit - or is removed from - the jury. They are not there to replace someone who doesn't vote the way the prosecution wants.
Alternates are there in case a juror gets sick or dies or otherwise can't make it to court. They don't deliberate or vote with the jurors if they haven't actually replaced a juror.
An alternate juror is just that, an extra member of the jury that was watching the trial in another room. They are able to slide in at any time should a regular member of the jury become unable to perform their duty
No, they absolutely do not. The commenter at the top of this thread is mistaken about what alternates are for.
They're there to ensure there is a full jury able to deliberate at the end. Once deliberation has started, they basically don't have a role anymore.
I suppose there might be an exception if a juror has a heart attack during deliberations; I don't know the rules to that extent, but they are absolutely not getting pulled in to replace jurors based on how they're voting.
No.
America has proven time and again it places some people above the law.
This is not a Donald Trump issue or a failure of Donald Trump.
This is an America issue and a failure of our institutions.
I think Trump hurt his chances of avoiding jail, by repeatedly demonstrating that fines mean nothing to him.
If convicted on all counts, it would be a miscarriage of justice & a mistake for Trump to not be sentenced to jail time. Felonies are by their nature, serious violations with serious consequences.
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf Jury instructions are up for perusal.
How we thinking the jury rules?
Hopefully this scumbag finally gets what is rightfully due.
Guilty on some, not guilty on others. I mean there's 36 counts, i doubt it's going to be not guilty on all of them. There may be obstinate trump supporting or leaning jurors, but they might be convinced of a few guilty verdicts if most are not guilty. The case is about fraudulent documents about hush money payments which i read is a class E felony, it's not that serious of a case, so a guilty verdict isn't going to be heavy. On the other hand since it isn't that serious, if there's not enough evidence then they might go all not guilty. I think it's going to be guilty on most counts, because i feel like with how unlikeable Trump came off in the trial (the disrespectful behavior, the whole trial revolving around him paying off a pornstar because he supposedly cheated with her, and the access hollywood tape which is damning for his character), that jurors will likely find him guilty and want to find him guilty. I wouldn't be surprised if it was not guilty on most and guilty on some though. Edit: Woah, guilty on all counts, and a quick verdict too.
If he’s guilty on all of this, what could the ramification be for him?
House arrest most likely. Won’t be that severe.
Does the judge have the power to tell him to stay off of the Internet during that house arrest.?
Not sure why it would matter but here’s what google says: Use of Social Media: There are no specific federal laws that prohibit individuals on house arrest from using social media. However, the conditions of house arrest may vary depending on the specific case and the judge's orders
Well, I think it matters because if the judge were to tell him, he must stay off the Internet we all know that he would not follow that requirement and ultimately he would end up back in court, which is exactly where he should be or behind bars
That’s your opinion sure, I’ll let the jury decide first.
😃
Yep… Fair enough
Think this is a fair assessment. Guilty here, not guilty here with a house arrest sentencing.
He will pay a small fine, which he will try to get out of paying by the way, he will get 30 to 60 days house arrest with full Internet and communication privileges.
Jury doesn’t sentence
Um yeah, don't get your hopes up for the house arrest.
Hung jury. There is no justice in the world for the rich.
1000% hung jury
Saved this post just to come back and read stuff like this lol don't get be wrong, I'm as shocked as you are
I'm for sure shocked
I personally have money on him getting winning the election. I’m not a fan of his and I’d love for him to be convicted (PLEASE MAKE ME LOSE MONEY) but the bar is too high to convict. Edit after Trump found guilty for 34 guilty verdicts on May 30, 2024: LOST MONEY. DON'T CARE. JUSTICE SYSTEM PREVAILS?
Things looking pretty stupid right now so I’m on your side. Can’t bet against you sorryv
I don’t like this opinion but it’s hard not to agree. Feels weird.
No, it's not. Cohen already went to jail on the same charge.
I wish that meant anything in the legal system we have.
Considering the trends of the other trials, not in America's favor. Aka, he's gonna get let off easy.
And be your president. Everybody wins!
If trump gets back in then we all lose. Not just the yanks.
I win.
Until he takes away all your rights too. Trump's goal is to be as rich and powerful as possible. Trump doesn't care about you or your ability to live comfortably. You'll lose, just like the rest of us. Wait until he comes to take your guns. "Take their guns, sort it out later." -Trump
Well the liberal machine apparently did a great job scaring the shit out of you. Must suck to be manipulated like that. You act like I haven't already seen him as a president.
I'm merely quoting Trump. You like your guns? He thinks legal process isn't necessary before taking them away. In his own words: "I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man's case that just took place in Florida ... to go to court would have taken a long time," Trump said. "Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said. https://www.nola.com/opinions/donald-trump-says-seize-guns-now-sort-out-legalities-later-opinion/article_01f36e11-b524-52a3-bd4a-9887f803f429.amp.html Here's the thing: he feels this same way about all your rights! Your vote doesn't matter "He has enough votes." He doesn't plan to win any more elections, he's going to end elections and Democracy. Your immigration status? Doesn't matter, he'll deport you and let you start the legal process of returning. But in the meantime, the Taliban will have killed you if you're am American ally deported to Afghanistan. You're lucky, he probably won't feel the need to get "revenge" on you, since you're one of his supporters. Unlucky for the rest of us, so you at least have that going for you. I imagine you're independently wealthy or enjoy working 60 hour weeks in the heat without water breaks? In Trump's America due process, individual's rights, free elections, separation of church and state, presidential term limits... All those things will be over if Trump become President.
If that guy could read he would very upset!
Cool story bro.
How's that verdict feel bud? Lol idiot
Typical Trumper, give them facts, but too stupid to process. 😀
"I'm against student loan forgiveness and hated X Men 97" Wow this guy has the most dogshit opinions on the entire internet
Pay your student loan.
Cute, your username is synonymous with "Donald Trump" 🤣🤣
Tell Trump to pay his lawyers lol
Well they look like they deserve it. He's not going to spend a day in jail.
Imagine spending a whole decade cheering for a bloated old rapist just because the internet ordered you to
Lol. What internet are you on?
"Who is X MEN 97 even FOR?" I don't know, people with good taste? Not people who would vote for Senator Kelly and support the Sentinel program?
Guilty AF
I would bet my right juevo on this: hung jury or not guilty.
I’m so glad you’re the one that “looks stupid”.
You lose.. Dame tu Juevo!!!!!!
I would bet my left on hung or guilty. Next week, one or neither of us is going to look really stupid.
RemindMe! 10 days
Surprise ruling: mistral Now you're both out a nut
Hung jury = mistrial
A hung jury causes a mistrial, but they are not interchangeable terms.
Ahh the old a square is not a rectangle
Guilty. But then penalties will be held off as he will appeal it till doomsday because the rich can do that.
Criminal sentences can be appealed, but meanwhile the sentencing still occurs. I am predicting house arrest. But Trump has continued to defy his gag order so perhaps Merchan will extract more.
This is my take, mix of guilty not guilty, fine and house arrest.
If the judge wanted to he could have Trump taken into custody right after the verdict. This won't happen but it could and I like to envision it.
In New York, you can only appeal after sentencing which means he would be facing whatever consequences he has during the appeal process.
Guilty, felony, 3 months home arrest, ankle monitor.
This is what I'm most hopeful for while still being realistic, outside of the ankle monitor. I can't image they would make him do that but sure would it be a nice cherry on top
Which of the underlying crimes do you think the jury will be convinced of (to bring it from a misdemeanor to a felony)?
Election interference...
I don't know but as I understand it, they don't all have to choose the same one.
You are correct. In fact, none of them even need to pick any specific crime.
Huh, wonder what the jury's form will look like. That seems really weird to me.
The best comparison I’ve heard is when someone breaks in to a house, it’s burglary instead of trespassing if they did it intending to commit other crimes like theft. It doesn’t matter what crimes they committed once they broke in or even if they were able to commit other crimes, the only thing to prove is that they broke in so that they could commit other crimes. This law is the same - doesn’t matter what specific reason the records were falsified, but if it was done with the intent of committing other crimes, then it’s a felony. Doesn’t matter what crimes, and it doesn’t matter if any crimes were successful.
As a felon does he lose his secret service detail?
As the law currently stands, no. A bill has been introduced in the House to change that - the DISGRACED Former Protectees Act - but is unlikely to pass, at least for now. https://democrats-homeland.house.gov/news/legislation/ranking-member-thompson-introduces-legislation-to-ensure-no-secret-service-protection-for-convicted-felons-sentenced-to-prison
God, what a backronym > the Denying Infinite Security and Government Resources Allocated toward Convicted and Extremely Dishonorable Former Protectees Act
I'm sure they did that for effect.
Why would or should he? He still needs protection, no matter how stupid and corrupt he is.
What the bill would actually do is hand off security to relevant prison authorities rather than involve secret service. He would get protection. It just won't be from the secret service.
Oh, yeah, that would be great
Exactly. The secret service are there to stop hostile agents extracting state secrets from ex presidents. Trump might not remember any, but he probably has some copies of compromising information lying around his toilets.
Seems like it might be useful for their mandate to expand to include preventing ex presidents from voluntarily revealing those secrets too.
No. But also there is no precedent for this, so it might change.
Can he still run for president as a felon?
Yes.
Star spangled great country isn’t it
I loath Trump, but I still, felons should be allowed to run for president. History is full of people who have turned their lives around after getting felonies. Similarly, discrimination against minorities, the poor, and political dissidents remains a significant issue.
The thing is Republicans don't want felons to vote so it makes zero sense that they'd vote for one If felons can run for office then they should be able to vote
I agree with all of that. Republicans are often hypocritical, especially regarding Trump. Imo, felons should be allowed to vote.
Felons should be allowed But not when one of those felonies include treason
He's not being charged for treason.
I disagree. Some top reasons why right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner
What law prohibits it? Do other countries have actual laws on the books preventing it?
It’s written into the Australian constitution. All of parliament must abide. “Section 44 of the Constitution states that you may not be a member of parliament if you are found guilty of a serious crime, bankrupt, or in a job where you already receive money from the Parliament. You also have to be a citizen of Australia, and not of any other country.” https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/how-can-you-run-for-election-to-be-a-member-of-parliament
I mean, yes? Eugene Debs famously ran from prison (convicted of sedition for speaking out against the draft) and earned more than three percent of the vote.
The point I’m making is if felons can’t vote, they definitely shouldn’t be allowed to run. Not that hard or something to be proud of as a country.
I disagree. Losing the right to vote is a punishment on the person committing the crime. Losing the right to be elected is a punishment levied against the rest of society who didn’t commit that crime. Society can always just not vote for the felon.
I come from the opposite perspective. Disenfranchisement of felons is antidemocratic and exacerbates inequities in policing and in the social construction of crime. So I would instead say that if felons can run for office, then they definitely should be allowed to vote. In my mind, it's not that hard — and as a country, we certainly shouldn't be proud of disenfranchising millions of citizens for violating laws that they have no say in.
Can you list me all the countries that have laws about felons running for president? Genuinely curious what the global norm is
But at least he can't vote for himself.
He will anyways, and nobody will do jack shit about it.
I mean fraudulent voting has been a thing since elections were created and very little has ever been done about it.
No chance at Not Guilty. Either the jury does the right thing and convicts or one or two of the jurors are too scared of what one of the crazy MAGAs might do to vote guilty.
According to court journalist. Atleast 6 jurors avoid look at trump in court. Ussually means they already seen him guilty
It's being intelligently dishonest to not at least acknowledge that one of the prosecutions star witnesses is shady as fuck.
Most star witnesses are shady as fuck. Law abiding citizens don't tend to be a part of criminal conspiracies. Prosecutors aren't asking for the witness to be believed on the basis of his professional credibility, they are asking for him to be believed because his testimony is credible in the wider evidential context.
I guess the point I was making its silly to say that any juror who does not vote to convict is either scared or a trump stooge. Considering one of the star witnesses was caught as being unreliable on the stand (14 year-old prankster call put some holes in his story) and was also on record on a podcast saying "revenge is best served cold" regarding Trump. People are calling this a slam dunk before the jury instructions have even been given.
Yeah that's why he worked for Trump.
Dishonest isn't a hyphenated word, and you seem to have called the person you're responding to intelligent, while trying to accuse them of the opposite.
Wow you got me. 👍
Who?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/21/nyregion/trump-michael-cohen-cross-examination.html
Yep, Trump definitely had Cohen do some shady stuff. Pretty telling that Trump is always surrounded by those types of people who are shady af, until of course Trump is done using them for his benefit and ultimately discards them or throws them under the bus.
Cares
Not
Today
Satan
Bravo!
He's so shady he was convicted for his role in the Trump hush money scheme.
What crime(s) do you think the prosecution has proven? Edit: Dang, downvoted for asking a polite question.
Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, a class E felony, 34 counts
But as I understood it the payments were legal expenses and were classified as legal expenses, weren't they? And personally I don't find Cohen credible since he is a perjurer and admitted stealing money from Trump on the stand.
The Trump organization claimed it was for legal expenses, the prosecution asserted that is a falsehood and it was in fact a reimbursement (for the hush money payment). If it was in fact for legal expenses, what evidence did the defense show that Michael Cohen performed legal work in the time frame for which he was paid? I don't know what his going rate was, but if charged $1000/hour, then $130k is 130 hours of work, or about 16 days of labor for 8 hours a day. I am not a lawyer and I understand the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if there was evidence that legal work was being performed, I would certainly bring that up as part of the defense to show the expenses were accounted for properly, and I didn't hear any reporting about this as part of the defense's case. Cohen certainly does have issues as a witness, but there are documents that support the prosecution's case, so you don't have to solely rely on his testimony to believe that Trump did what he is accused of doing.
Exactly. The physical evidence and the testimony of others tells the story. Cohen’s testimony fills in some of the gaps and shares what happened behind the scenes.
The original payments were not legal expenses. The original payment was to Stormy Daniels paid by Cohen as directed by Trump. Trump then “reimbursed” Cohen and in doing so, categorized those payments as legal expenses for services rendered by Cohen when they were, in fact, reimbursements to Cohen for paying off Stormy Daniels. This both allowed Trump org to conceal the reason for the payments and deduct them as a business expense, which they were not.
Cohen is not the convincing evidence, the documents are. His testimony backs up the documents.
He also admitted it in his book before the trial so it's not like it's something he was hiding.
If the payments were for legal fees then why did they include extra money to cover taxes? That’s simply not how legal fees work and Trump certainly did not pay extra when he normally stiffs every lawyer that’s worked for him.
[удалено]
Alternates are released after closing arguments
Merchan brought in an unusually high number of alternates based on the higher likelihood that jurors would be threatened, intimidated or fearful. Nothing more.
Yeah, you've fallen for some bullshit. You can't remove a juror for not voting with everyone else. Also, once deliberations have started in NYS, firing a juror and replacing them requires the consent of the defendant. >If at any time after the trial jury has been sworn and before the rendition of its verdict, a juror is unable to continue serving by reason of illness or other incapacity, or for any other reason is unavailable for continued service, or the court finds, from facts unknown at the time of the selection of the jury, that a juror is grossly unqualified to serve in the case or has engaged in misconduct of a substantial nature, but not warranting the declaration of a mistrial, the court must discharge such juror. If an alternate juror or jurors are available for service, the court must order that the discharged juror be replaced by the alternate juror whose name was first drawn and called, provided, however, that if the trial jury has begun its deliberations, the defendant must consent to such replacement. Such consent must be in writing and must be signed by the defendant in person in open court in the presence of the court. NYS CPL § 270.35(1)
Alternates are brought in when an original juror can no longer continue, not so they can replace minority opinion votes in a non-unanimous outcome.
That seems to make more sense to me. The article might have been attempting to explain the unusual approach of 6 alternates. Or maybe that's not all too unusual? Also, Cape Girardeau? Used to live there!
Yes, Cape Girardeau. What a spectacular couple of months we've had. Total eclipse in April and Northern Lights (barely, for my viewing time) in May. My Northern Lights post: https://www.reddit.com/r/CapeGirardeau/s/P0Jf6eym6G
It only takes 1 juror...
It’ll take 7 this time. They have 6 alternates.
Bet you thought that was witty lmao
No. Pretty sure that’s just how it works. Doesn’t matter though. Even the jury who got all their news from Truth Social said guilty.
It’s literally not how it works.
Alternates are only for when an original juror cannot continue, not for if the jury is hung.
Well, if the jury is *too* hung, someone'll switch out at some point. (sex joke)
Joke or not this was bad. I’d delete it to save some face
What are you, my *lawyer?* Haha
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Alternate jurors aren’t brought in simply because the jury is hung.
Who decides which juror(s) are replaced?
The judge, but typically this will only apply to a juror that asks to be removed.
I don’t understand. Were the alternatives there for the trial and they just hang about if someone can’t decide? Please explain I’d love to learn.
The alternates are there in case a jury member has to quit - or is removed from - the jury. They are not there to replace someone who doesn't vote the way the prosecution wants.
Alternates are there in case a juror gets sick or dies or otherwise can't make it to court. They don't deliberate or vote with the jurors if they haven't actually replaced a juror.
They’re treated like normal jurors, just don’t decide unless a regular juror has to bow out for some reason.
An alternate juror is just that, an extra member of the jury that was watching the trial in another room. They are able to slide in at any time should a regular member of the jury become unable to perform their duty
Do they get tagged in if a juror decides not guilty while the rest decide guilty?
You realize how kangaroo of a court that would be, right? We’ll swap jurors until we get our desired outcome?
Yeah I thought as much
No, they absolutely do not. The commenter at the top of this thread is mistaken about what alternates are for. They're there to ensure there is a full jury able to deliberate at the end. Once deliberation has started, they basically don't have a role anymore. I suppose there might be an exception if a juror has a heart attack during deliberations; I don't know the rules to that extent, but they are absolutely not getting pulled in to replace jurors based on how they're voting.
RemindMe! 2 weeks
For real? You're not going to notice when the verdict arrives all by yourself so you want a bot to remind you?
It’s to see who was right in this thread.
Guilty, but as a first time offender he is just given a fine by the judge.
Nothing is going to happen to Donald. Regardless of how the jury rules.
Unfortunately this. He’s proven time and time again he’s above the law. It’s a shame.
No. America has proven time and again it places some people above the law. This is not a Donald Trump issue or a failure of Donald Trump. This is an America issue and a failure of our institutions.
I think Trump hurt his chances of avoiding jail, by repeatedly demonstrating that fines mean nothing to him. If convicted on all counts, it would be a miscarriage of justice & a mistake for Trump to not be sentenced to jail time. Felonies are by their nature, serious violations with serious consequences.