6-3 ruling and Trump's guilty verdict

[Dante]

"This is all disgusting, paranoid, hateful opinion masquerading as truth.

Must've been a Hannity/Carlson FOX News watcher.

Truth: The jury was unanimous in it's finding Mr. Trump guilty of all criminal charges.

Does the OP even know wtf he's ranting on about?
.
"The US Supreme Court sided with criminal defendants saying juries, not judges, must decide certain facts about whether a person is a habitual offender qualifying for a tougher sentence."

 

[Delldude]

Enhanced sentencing? LOL

LOL................how about reading what I said...................'enhanced charges'.....................got you worried now sonny boy?

 

[Dante]

Everyone saying there is no chance of an appeal may be right, this could stop the entire case in its tracks. Another Trump win?

The ruling and the rhetoric in the opinion have obvious implications for both the illegal Bragg witch trial against Trump in New York City and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

Supreme Court Backs Robust Jury Right in Criminal Sentencing (1)

The US Supreme Court sided with criminal defendants saying juries, not judges, must decide certain facts about whether a person is a habitual offender qualifying for a tougher sentence.

news.bloomberglaw.com

The district court rejected Erlinger’s request for a jury to decide if each of his crimes had been committed on separate episodes, constituting at least three ACCA-qualifying offenses. The court called the resulting 15-year sentence both “unfortunate” and “excessive.”

Erlinger appealed contesting again that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments gave him the right to allow a jury to decide if his crimes took place on separate episodes. The government then omitted error and said the Constitution “requires a jury” to decide whether Erlinger’s crimes were committed on separate occasions.

The Seventh Circuit Court, however, didn’t change the district court’s judgment despite their omission of error.

In his opinion, Gorsuch cited John Adams and other founding fathers who he said, “saw representative government and trial by jury as ‘the heart and lungs of liberty.’”

OLD DISCUSSION OF 1512(c) and TRUMP

Will the Supreme Court clip the wings of prosecutors in their Jan. 6 prosecutions? | Constitution Center

Before the U.S. Supreme Court takes up former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the justices will hear another Jan. 6 case that may affect not just Trump, but 300 others involved in that violent riot, and the...

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Dante]

LOL................how about reading what I said...................'enhanced charges'.....................got you worried now sonny boy?

Your link states "the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements"

First, the charges were not and are not bogus.


and there is nothing about what you are weirdly calling "enhanced charges" You cannot link to anything that using your weird shit

Supreme Court Backs Robust Jury Right in Criminal Sentencing (1)

The US Supreme Court sided with criminal defendants saying juries, not judges, must decide certain facts about whether a person is a habitual offender qualifying for a tougher sentence.

news.bloomberglaw.com

The district court rejected Erlinger’s request for a jury to decide if each of his crimes had been committed on separate episodes, constituting at least three ACCA-qualifying offenses. The court called the resulting 15-year sentence both “unfortunate” and “excessive.”

Erlinger appealed contesting again that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments gave him the right to allow a jury to decide if his crimes took place on separate episodes. The government then omitted error and said the Constitution “requires a jury” to decide whether Erlinger’s crimes were committed on separate occasions.

The Seventh Circuit Court, however, didn’t change the district court’s judgment despite their omission of error.

In his opinion, Gorsuch cited John Adams and other founding fathers who he said, “saw representative government and trial by jury as ‘the heart and lungs of liberty.’”

OLD DISCUSSION OF 1512(c) and TRUMP

Will the Supreme Court clip the wings of prosecutors in their Jan. 6 prosecutions? | Constitution Center

Before the U.S. Supreme Court takes up former President Donald Trump’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, the justices will hear another Jan. 6 case that may affect not just Trump, but 300 others involved in that violent riot, and the...

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Dante]

Everyone saying there is no chance of an appeal may be right, this could stop the entire case in its tracks. Another Trump win?

The ruling and the rhetoric in the opinion have obvious implications for both the illegal Bragg witch trial against Trump in New York City and the bogus J6 1512(c) charges and sentencing enhancements that corrupt federal judges have announced they will implement if the Supreme Court nukes 1512(c).

Hello?

"The federal law is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), It is part of a larger statute, known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which was enacted by Congress in 2002 in response to the Enron accounting fraud."