Started By
Message
locked post

PT Atty's - deep dive into the "4 of you think it's A, 4 think it's B and 4 think it's C"

Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:48 am
Posted by Meauxjeaux
102836 posts including my alters
Member since Jun 2005
45860 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:48 am
I'm still struggling to understand how the misdemeanors got turned into felonies.

As I understand it, 12 people have to agree that a particular crime was committed, willfully, in order to get a conviction on it.

But it appears that if 4 people think it was Col Mustard, and 4 think it was with a knife and 4 think it was in the Study, BUT 8 didn't think Col Mustard or a knife or the Study, that that was ok.

What mechanism is used to get to that? Just the jury instructions? Is there precedent for this sort of thing in NY?
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 9:50 am
Posted by _Hurricane_
Somewhere
Member since Feb 2016
7260 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:50 am to
Not an attorney, but I’ve never heard of anything like this. And why would a deep blue DA risk the appearance of obvious bias in bringing a case that wasn’t routine and easily understandable? I mean we know why, but it’s just so ridiculous.
Posted by AuburnTigers
9x National Champion
Member since Aug 2013
17432 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:55 am to
Basically, if you feel like he is guilty, mark guilty, regardless of actual evidence
Posted by TigerFanatic99
South Bend, Indiana
Member since Jan 2007
34608 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:58 am to
I understand the concept. The point is it doesn't matter what the secondary crime is. The only relevant part is do you as a juror believe that the document fraud was done to cover up another crime.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
15658 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:00 am to
quote:


I'm still struggling to understand how the misdemeanors got turned into felonies.

The misdemeanors become felonies when there is an attempt to conceal another crime.

The judge's instructions were,
quote:

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.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
15658 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:01 am to
quote:


Basically, if you feel like he is guilty, mark guilty, regardless of actual evidence

Found the dumbass who just makes up shite to cloud the judgment of other people trying to genuinely understand factual information.
Posted by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
17135 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:09 am to
Yes but they didn’t produce another crime to begin the conspiracy. What they did show was Trump was not / is not involved in bookkeeping. They did show that government was involved in furthering criminal activity though. Conspiracy to hide criminal conduct by Cohen theft, prosecution & judge working closely to prevent defendants right to a fair trial or even a speedy trial if you conclude that they went shopping for a venue & a retroactive change of a law that would cancel a SOL. But obviously no DOJ help with this until Trump is actually sitting in that chair behind the Resolute Desk
Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
35696 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:11 am to
quote:

Yes but they didn’t produce another crime to begin the conspiracy.

They are using Cohen's convictions as the predicate crimes, not a crime committed by Trump.
Posted by Nosevens
Member since Apr 2019
17135 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:21 am to
Which is farcical then as Cohen was convicted on things other than something outright with Trump. They had dealings of Trump as a secondary charge
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
62600 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:25 am to
quote:

The misdemeanors become felonies when there is an attempt to conceal another crime.


The problem, of course, is there was no underlying crime committed. There was nothing to cover up.
Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
18845 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:29 am to
quote:

The point is it doesn't matter what the secondary crime is. The only relevant part is do you as a juror believe that the document fraud was done to cover up another crime.


If there is no secondary crime, then covering up something that isn't a crime is meaningless. Paying hush money isn't a crime and is not election interference. Congress has a slush fund for paying off sexual assault victims for fricks sake
Posted by jchamil
Member since Nov 2009
18845 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:30 am to
quote:

Found the dumbass who just makes up shite to cloud the judgment of other people trying to genuinely understand factual information.


Well, that's exactly what the judge told them after translated from the bullshite legal speak he gave them.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
15658 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:30 am to
quote:

The problem, of course, is there was no underlying crime committed. There was nothing to cover up.

The $130k payment to Stormy Daniels through a shell corporation was an illegal campaign contribution (to hush about something that could influence an election). The lawyer who paid it pled guilty to the crime and served prison time.

The problem with your statement is there was a crime.
Posted by TigerDoug
Lees Summit
Member since Mar 2017
766 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:31 am to
quote:

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.


Great. Now do that with the laptop and Ashley's diary. Get pedo Joe along with the 50+ experts claiming Russia disinformation and claiming laptop was fake.
Posted by MemphisGuy
Germantown, TN
Member since Nov 2023
13704 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:35 am to
quote:

The problem with your statement is there was a crime.


I mean... the FEC didn't seem to think so...
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
52038 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:38 am to
quote:

Found the dumbass who just makes up shite to cloud the judgment of other people trying to genuinely understand factual information.

Man, I think he hit the nail on the head. The Judge's instructions boiled down to about that - if you feel like he's guilty of something convict him.
Posted by Zachary
Member since Jan 2007
1832 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:44 am to
So the ONLY way this prosecution has life is if -- and only if -- "another crime" is intended or facilitated, and without said other crime, the defendant absolutely cannot be prosecuted or found guilty...

AND YET:

- the prosecution does not have to identify the other crime so that the defendant can defend against it;

- the jury does not have to identify the other crime; and

- even though unanimity among jurors is necessary to convict, the jury does not have to be unanimous regarding the very fulcrum of the case, i.e., the "other crime."

In other words, a star chamber.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
15658 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:46 am to
quote:


I mean... the FEC didn't seem to think so...

Despite what you mean, you didn't even support what you claimed.

Here's an example of how to support your position:

Michael Cohen pled guilty in Federal Court to Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
295998 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:48 am to
This was a pre-determined Kangaroo court.

The Rule of Law is dead, frick those people.
Posted by Willie Stroker
Member since Sep 2008
15658 posts
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:51 am to
quote:

So the ONLY way this prosecution has life is if -- and only if -- "another crime" is intended or facilitated, and without said other crime, the defendant absolutely cannot be prosecuted or found guilty...

Where do you get this from?

No, the 30+ counts he was convicted of are misdemeanors on their own. He was convicted for falsifying business records. It becomes a felony when those falsified records are to conceal another crime. We know there was another crime related to these transactions because Michael Cohen pled guilty to it and served time for it.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram