- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

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 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?
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 on 5/31/24 at 9:50 am to Meauxjeaux
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 on 5/31/24 at 9:55 am to Meauxjeaux
Basically, if you feel like he is guilty, mark guilty, regardless of actual evidence
Posted on 5/31/24 at 9:58 am to Meauxjeaux
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:00 am to Meauxjeaux
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:01 am to AuburnTigers
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:09 am to Willie Stroker
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:11 am to Nosevens
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:21 am to Indefatigable
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:25 am to Willie Stroker
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:29 am to TigerFanatic99
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:30 am to Willie Stroker
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:30 am to imjustafatkid
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:31 am to Willie Stroker
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:35 am to Willie Stroker
quote:
The problem with your statement is there was a crime.
I mean... the FEC didn't seem to think so...
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:38 am to Willie Stroker
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:44 am to Willie Stroker
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.
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:46 am to MemphisGuy
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 on 5/31/24 at 10:48 am to Meauxjeaux
This was a pre-determined Kangaroo court.
The Rule of Law is dead, frick those people.
The Rule of Law is dead, frick those people.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 10:51 am to Zachary
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.
Back to top


10






