Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[TexEx15 17350]

Edited May 29 by TexEx15

[immamac 41751]

1 minute ago, TexEx15 said:

I remember when Aziz Ansari was funny. 

[Dnaguy 11599]

4 minutes ago, tx ind said:

 

Trump hasn't walked more than 0.1 miles in the last 30 years.

And that was to hold a bible upside-down as a photo op.

[4th&Five 41245]

 

[jimmyjazz 45212]

24 minutes ago, Foosters said:

408 votes for "not guilty" and not a single guilty vote on any count?

Wouldn't 11-1 guilty/not guilty on every count let him walk?

[Red Five 40455]

What the fuck does that even mean? "Red Five you are charged with going 120 MPH in a school zone."

"Mother Teresa couldn't beat those charges!" 

[Foosters 17638]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Wouldn't 11-1 guilty/not guilty on every count let him walk?

That's a hung jury. Hell, I tried a case with 11 NG votes, and 1 holdout for guilty. DA wouldn't even reduce the charge and judge refused to lower the bail, and we had to try it again. Waste of everyone's time.

[Underdog 28231]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

Too soon, bro. 

[dieucla98 2782]

Is there a general rule of thumb here - the longer the deliberations, the more likely a guilty verdict or vis versa or is that just on SVU?

[jimmyjazz 45212]

4 minutes ago, Foosters said:

That's a hung jury. 

I didn't realize that wouldn't be "not guilty".  The question stands:  would he walk or would he have to be re-tried?

[Foosters 17638]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't realize that wouldn't be "not guilty".  The question stands:  would he walk or would he have to be re-tried?

Up to the DA if they want to retry.

[Captainant 26927]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Dumb as a bag of hair.

Dumb, except somehow she keeps doing fuckeries that are unappealable? If she's truly dumb, then she's getting coaching from someone on how to fuck fuck the process and prosecution. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11571]

Just now, Captainant said:

Dumb, except somehow she keeps doing fuckeries that are unappealable? If she's truly dumb, then she's getting coaching from someone on how to fuck fuck the process and prosecution. 

that's the easiest thing in the world to do if you want to.  judges have all sorts of discretion on all sorts of decisions.

[TwiceHorn 30851]

3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

that's the easiest thing in the world to do if you want to.  judges have all sorts of discretion on all sorts of decisions.

Yeah, about 80% of judicial decisions before trial are unappealable.  Anything relating to scheduling or virtually any motion that doesn't dispose of the case (motion to dismiss, summary judgment, etc.) is not appealable, either immediately or post-trial.  Post-trial you can try to appeal anything, but a ton of those decisions are discretionary and nearly impossible to reverse.

Edited May 29 by TwiceHorn

[RDCanecutter 25996]

1 hour ago, Shut up Lou Holtz said:

He’s such a fucking child it’s pathetic. Literally using crayon to bring his notes to court. 

From the look of it I'd say that was written with America's Treasure, the Sharpie marker. Especially since it looks like he was clenching it in his asshole when he wrote that.

[Goredho 17181]

48 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Also, gird yourself for a hung jury.

Makes the most sense.  We’re a “hung country.”

[Fudge Nuggets 19001]

1 hour ago, Gatorubet said:

Wow! So like a death sentence?

I'm good with that.

[The Original Greaser Bob 2736]

34 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

I be fine with them being back in a hour or two with all charges guilty, thank you.  

Every other desire regarding  the deliberations is:

[Red Five 40455]

When does the sentencing take place? 

[Gatorubet 29791]

40 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Completed law school and passed a bar exam, yes?  Anything to interpret from that?

I don’t think I’m the dumbest lawyer ever, but please don’t ask me about patents or FCC stuff. Or divorce/child support stuff. Or anything but the most simplistic bankruptcy stuff. Or anything having to do with property law or servitudes or easements Or many areas of constitutional law.

There are many brilliant people who know a lot about those subspecialties, but not one thing about jury trials or being a federal judge having to rule on many topics they have never seen before.   Cannon had zero experience and never should have been appointed.   

There is also very little about law school that prepares you to practice law. Passing a law school or passing the bar both leave you totally unprepared to be a trial practitioner.  That is why in Great Britain they have solicitors and barristers.    Being good at one does not make you marginally competent in the other.

The law is no different than every other profession that has complete morons engaging in that profession, despite getting an advanced degree. It is exactly like ‘what do you call the person who finished last in medical school?’  Doctor. 

This was less a failure of law school, and more of failure of a partisan Trump judicial vetting process.  It is about to get worse, because you will have to raise your right hand and swear that the election was stollen and Presidents bigly immune to get the next Trump federal judicial appointments.

[Gatorubet 29791]

3 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I'm good with that.

Absolutely. But not until that disgusting orange germaphobe has to poop in a stainless steel bowl while other people watch and laugh at him. 

[DixonHur 10862]

1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

Absolutely. But not until that disgusting orange germaphobe has to poop in a stainless steel bowl while other people watch and laugh at him. 

Something tells me that isn't what those poor Secret Service agents expected when they signed up.

[Js1 83686]

2 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Something tells me that isn't what those poor Secret Service agents expected when they signed up.

Yeah they thought they were signing up to bang Melania 

[WhatTheBuck 28620]

44 minutes ago, immamac said:

I remember when Aziz Ansari was funny. 

I don’t. 

[locodos 5257]

42 minutes ago, Red Five said:

What the fuck does that even mean? "Red Five you are charged with going 120 MPH in a school zone."

"Mother Teresa couldn't beat those charges!" 

Mother Teresa had a much more powerful "Catch and Kill" network

[The Dog 43491]

Let's see who he pulls offsides with this one:

 

[NWBuck 8534]

21 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Makes the most sense.  We’re a “hung country.”

 

[jimmyjazz 45212]

1 minute ago, locodos said:

Mother Teresa had a much more powerful "Catch and Kill" network

Fuck, Catch, Kill?

[TexEx15 17350]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33723]

4 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Let's see who he pulls offsides with this one:

 

he's just not funny. good effort, I guess.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11571]

yeah, three year letterman's one trick is past its expiration date.

[C-Man 26758]

5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

he's just not funny. good effort, I guess.

 

3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

yeah, three year letterman's one trick is past its expiration date.

Gary Peterson OTOH

[TexasHooch 5088]

Letterman is like the 7 year-old kid who lands a joke and then proceeds to hammer it 4 more times expecting the same response.

Edited May 29 by TexasHooch

[Degenerate Gardner 4064]

Just now, TexasHooch said:

Letterman is like the 7 year-old kid who lands a joke and then proceeds to hammer it 4 more times expecting the same response.

Should have gone out on a high note.

 

 

[Gatorubet 29791]

56 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

Is there a general rule of thumb here - the longer the deliberations, the more likely a guilty verdict or vis versa or is that just on SVU?

Super quick verdict would be concerning, as would three days with no verdict. A super quick verdict means they did not take the time to go through the 30 or 40 separate charges and the elements for each.     Days without progress means there is a hold out, and there would be word to the judge who would respond with an approved dynamite charge. 

The jury not asking any questions of the court while in deliberation the next 24 hours would seem to me to be a positive thing for the prosecution. 

[David Dennison 17804]

Typical David Dennison type post 

Too wordy.

[Pancho 43021]

26 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Let's see who he pulls offsides with this one:

 

 

I think you are actually this guy because who else would keep propping up his tweets as hilarious?

 

(I kid…sort of)

[HornOnTheBayou 8858]

28 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Letterman is like the 7 year-old kid who lands a joke and then proceeds to hammer it 4 more times expecting the same response.

Woah, that's not fair. Sure his CBS show got stale towards the end, but you could argue that Late Night revolutionized TV talk shows. And who doesn't love a good top ten list?

[TexasHooch 5088]

Law dawgs, If the threshold for a Felony is that it was done to cover up a crime, do you really need to agree on what exactly that crime was, or could you have 4 jurors who say "it was this", 4 who say "it was that" and 4 who say "it was the other"?

[DigglerontheHoof 20600]

On 5/16/2024 at 3:09 PM, DixonHur said:

What is she even talking about?  Everyone knows what crime he's accused of committing.

Is she just saying that he's committed so many crimes that he's not sure which one this is?  

I thought all criminal convictions required a unanimous jury verdict. 

[gernblansten 3159]

Maybe this is what they're talking about:

Quote

Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.

It's helpful to read the entire instruction. It's page 25 and 26. 

Quote

 

Accessorial Liability

Our law recognizes that two or more individuals can act jointly to commit a crime, and that in certain circumstances, each can be held criminally liable for the acts of the others. In that situation, those persons can be said to be "acting in concert" with each other.

Our law defines the circumstances under which one person may be criminally liable for the conduct of another. That definition is as follows: When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the state of mind required for the commission of that offense, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.

Under that definition, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, or mere association with a perpetrator of a crime, does not by itself make a defendant criminally liable for that crime.

In order for the defendant to be held criminally liable for the conduct of another which constitutes an offense, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct, and (2) That he did so with the state of mind required for the commission of the offense. 

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is criminally liable for the conduct of another, the extent or degree of the defendant's participation in the crime does not matter. A defendant proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be criminally liable for the conduct of another in the commission of a crime is as guilty of the crime as if the defendant, personally, had committed every act constituting the crime.

The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the state of mind required for the commission of the crime, and either personally, or by acting in concert with another person, committed each of the remaining elements of the crime.

Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.

 

Of course, they could be talking about some other paragraph in the 55 pages of instructions. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

[Red Five 40455]

17 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Law dawgs, If the threshold for a Felony is that it was done to cover up a crime, do you really need to agree on what exactly that crime was, or could you have 4 jurors who say "it was this", 4 who say "it was that" and 4 who say "it was the other"?

I have seen law dawgs say that they do not have to agree on the crime. 

[locodos 5257]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I have seen law dawgs say that they do not have to agree on the crime. 

Link to Jury instructions...

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

 

From that link:

"Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both."

 

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"

-A. Lincoln

Edited May 29 by locodos

[gernblansten 3159]

Ignore my prior post, it appears this is what they're talking about:

Quote

 

NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE The People allege that the other crime the defendant intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York Election Law section 17-152. Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an election. Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct. Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.

“By Unlawful Means”

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 unlawful means: (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.

 

 

[TexasHooch 5088]

5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I have seen law dawgs say that they do not have to agree on the crime. 

I'm seeing due process arguments all over twitter, but it's twitter.

This doesn't answer my question as to whether it's proper, but this diagram is helpful to understand the instruction.

 

 

[tokamak 6324]

You all damn well know it's going to be Not Guilty all the way down. Why are you doing this to yourselves?

[Foosters 17638]

Just now, tokamak said:

You all damn well know it's going to be Not Guilty all the way down. Why are you doing this to yourselves?

bet you $50 its not

[immamac 41751]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

bet you $50 its not

I'll sanction this. 

[TexasHooch 5088]

Is a hung jury a push?

 

[Jiggy-Z 3422]

8 minutes ago, tokamak said:

You all damn well know it's going to be Not Guilty all the way down. Why are you doing this to yourselves?

You must have forgotten that most here are Longhorn fans.