dcbc

I think the Did someone make it rain? analogy is most apropos given the facts of this case.

What a bizarre jury instruction. It's actually really good, but I haven't ever seen anything like it. 1 hour from now. Jury finds Trump guilty of making it rain on Stormy Daniels.

Best I can tell: because there are 34 counts, the elements of the crime are a bit nuanced, and they can't have written instructions (because Trump objected-NY law is screwy that way). Reading tea leaves when it comes to juries is purely guesswork. By and large, they take their role seriously. And if they're taking their time to be sure they believe they're getting it right by the letter of the law, that's about as good of a scenario as we can ask for.

Beef ribs may be the easiest thing to get right apart from Pork Butts. Binder, Rub, cook (these can be cooked hotter than brisket and benefit from nicely rendered fat) Don't worry about wrapping them. Take them up to 200F. Spritz occasionally if you like. Rest for an hour and eat.

Yes. Both the 1100 and the 42 are still available. A quick look at the 1100 LWs on Gun broker looks like the bids start in the $1,800 range. Let's say Surly discount $1,650. I'll be in Austin the latter half of next week.

FFT

It's been a while and a slew of real baby in bag and casket sale posts pushed this way down the list. Plenty of nice vintage firearms available.

At this point, one of them probably has asked the rest why they can't have the charge and instructions back there, and one of the lawyers has explained why. Seems like something that would be discussed. I hope he doesn't. No reason to offer appellate ammo to the defense. But I hope that, internally, they understand that fact. And I suspect, with two NY lawyers on the jury, they do.

Unintentional jury nullification on the jury's part. Good on them for sticking with it and trying to get it right (two lawyers on the panel probably doesn't hurt). I was concerned that if they deliberate past tomorrow, it might not go as well for the good guys. But this may take a while.

Yeah, in Texas, they roll back there with the charge (with instructions) and fill it out. Edit: Here's the answer. It appears as though Trump objected to their being able to take a written charge into deliberations. Thus far, the Court of Appeals has held that it is error to provide a deliberating jury with a written copy of a complete final charge, or portions thereof, over a defendant’s objection. People v. Johnson, 81 N.Y.2d 980, 982 (1993); People v. Owens, 69 N.Y.2d 585, 591–592 (1987). A defendant may, however, consent, or impliedly consent by failing to timely object, to the submission of a written copy of the court’s entire final instructions to the jury. People v. Muhammad, 34 N.Y.3d 1152 (2020). If the court does provide a copy of its written final instructions, it needs to instruct the jury on the use of the written instructions. No wonder they're asking questions about instructions. 34 counts and a complex case. I'm glad they are. I'm less concerned about their asking about the instructions. I don't think they necessarily have a strong hold-out, I think they have more than they can remember and more than they were able to take notes on (or maybe their notes on the instructions conflict). And that was Trump's plan. But they appear to be made of sterner stuff and have a job to do.

Could easily be that, or it could be that they picked up on the prosecution's closing that they could convict without Cohen's testimony and said let's lean on Pecker. The jury's like a tripod.

Pecker may save us.

Which apparently is the source of the presumption that the jury follows the trial court's instructions.

See above. That smell did not age well.

Been there. My now-wife and I made a pot of gumbo to take to a party. For some reason, she had her dad's car that weekend. As we drove it over there, it sloshed all over the carpet. We never got the smell out, and it did not improve over time.

Because some lawyers do, in fact, give a damn about their client's interests and want to do their best by them.

I don't recall Pecker's testimony being as highly assailed as was Cohen's. So I agree, the fact that that's where their focus lies is bad news for Individual Uno.

Right. They're not sending it back there. We respect the jury. But we don't trust them with the record. Still telling about where their focus is, and I'll iterate, "He's cooked."

Hopefully when they read his guilty verdict, they double mispronounce his first name "'Orenthal' J. Trump."

I'd swear I've seen the parties agree to it, but it's been a minute since I've wondered about it.

Pecker's testimony stands firm.

"Where the criming was at."

I think they can have the testimony read back to them, no?