A challenge to our liberals re: the “crime” the NY County DA may indict Trump on.

[Delldude]

It’s a shit bet. You still fail to recognize the probable statute of limitations problem.

The felony version of that crime (ie, 1st degree) probably doesn’t apply.

Probably like a 5th degree felony.
Saw some opinion tonight on FOX, by talking heads from OTHER channels and the general gist was a conviction was a long shot.

 

[BackAgain]

*except the one that Cohen went to federal prison for.

It appears you're wrong again. You have quite a streak going!

False. He copped a plea which doesn’t mean he copped a plea to anything that was actually a crime.

Wrong again! He indeed pled guilty to two crimes regarding the illegal campaign contribution: one count of causing an unlawful campaign contribution and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution.

Yep. Because he agreed to cop a plea to that silliness. But his plea isn’t binding on President Trump. Hell, it’s not even introducible into evidence at a possible Trump trial.

Streak... unbroken!

Your streak of being a bombastic but wrong-headed moron is indeed intact.

And the streak ends.

Your streak of abject failure never ends.

I will take your word on that one.

Zzzz.

 

[Kilroy2]

The law as posted says nothing about residency. It says the accused has to CONTINUOUSLY stay outside the state for the entire five year statute of limitations period. Trump made many visits to New York state during those years. The reason for the extension is that the accused can only be served in New York State.

Good point. Still you did misquote my post for obvious reason to make the residency comment. The quote is below:

NY law says that statue of limitation time frames can be paused if the defendant is outside the state. So when Trump was in Washington for 4 years and that time is subtracted out of the statue of limitation number. So they got the time to still do it.

Also Trump gave up his NY residence when he changed it to Florida in 2019 which doesn't matter as the crime was before 2019.

 

[BackAgain]

Probably like a 5th degree felony.
Saw some opinion tonight on FOX, by talking heads from OTHER channels and the general gist was a conviction was a long shot.

It is a class “E” felony. The sentencing range is low for a felony. And there is no mandatory minimum. A person convicted of it could get no time at all.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Why, oh why do I find myself thinking of blue dresses all of a sudden?

 

[Delldude]

It is a class “E” felony. The sentencing range is low for a felony. And there is no mandatory minimum. A person convicted of it could get no time at all.

These clowns equate a felony with 10 - 20.

 

[BackAgain]

Good point. Still you did misquote my post for obvious reason to make the residency comment. The quote is below:

NY law says that statue of limitation time frames can be paused if the defendant is outside the state. So when Trump was in Washington for 4 years and that time is subtracted out of the statue of limitation number. So they got the time to still do it.

Also Trump gave up his NY residence when he changed it to Florida in 2019 which doesn't matter as the crime was before 2019.

One shouldn’t misquote a statue. Doing so is very poor form.

What the Criminal Procedure Law says in actual pertinent part is:

“4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.  However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.”

— New York CPL section 30.10(4)(b).

 

[BackAgain]

These clowns equate a felony with 10 - 20.

The max on an E is 1 1/3 to 4 years. The minimum can be as little as a conditional discharge.

 

[easyt65]

Challenge to our liberals:

While I recognize that all of you are thrilled that the Manhattan DA might be on the verge of indicting President Trump over the Stormy Daniels matter, and while of course I hate to burst your bubble, I can’t help but wonder:

Can any of you name the alleged NY State crime that Trump allegedly committed?

I know it’s not murder. I know it’s not kidnapping. I know it’s not a felony drug sale case. But I’m not sure I get what crime you folks assume he allegedly committed. Do you?

Step right up. Name that alleged crime or crimes.

(This post was originally posted within a different thread — but I like the question as a stand-alone thread.)

Trump engaging in a mutual agreement between 2 adults in which one paid the other / money exchanged hands, in an exchange in which no one was forced / coerced to go along with the agreement...

(....but it involves Trump, so....)

...unlike the case of then VP Biden extorting the former PM / leader of Ukraine...

 

[Kilroy2]

One shouldn’t misquote a statue. Doing so is very poor form.

What the Criminal Procedure Law says in actual pertinent part is:

“4. In calculating the time limitation applicable to commencement of a criminal action, the following periods shall not be included:

(a) Any period following the commission of the offense during which (i) the defendant was continuously outside this state or (ii) the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.  However, in no event shall the period of limitation be extended by more than five years beyond the period otherwise applicable under subdivision two.”

— New York CPL section 30.10(4)(b).

So your doing your happy dance well hold as it has to be interpreted. Obvious your opinion favors Trump.

You know it still does not matter. Trump changes his residency in mid 2019 and the hush money was paid in 2016. Continuously does not make a difference. They have time to still prosecute him. They are in the Grand Jury phase now, if the time had ran out they would not be doing this. His lawyer would ask for a dismissal. The extended time just adds to the amount of time that it has to be prosecuted.

So if the year was 2025 then trump would be doing his happy dance.

The appeals court has render a verdict that even if it is not continuous, the days that he was out of the state can be added up. This case had the defendant had move to another state but did comeback to NY on occasions

People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2d 226 | Casetext Search + Citator

NY appeals court has ruled on how it should be interpreted.
The People urge that the indictment was proper because the Statute of Limitations was tolled during all periods defendant was "continuously outside" the State. For an absence from the State to be "continuous" within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the People argue, it need not be a single uninterrupted period of time. We agree. The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v. Seda, 93 N.Y.2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations.

Applied here, defendant's own calculations demonstrate limited periods of presence in the State, totaling 114 days (or 219 days), during the six and a half year period at issue. This establishes that between December 19, 1991 and February 24, 1998, defendant was continuously outside the State within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i) during sufficient periods of time for us to conclude, as a matter of law, that the instant prosecution was timely commenced.

In so holding, we reject defendant's contention that the civil tolling provision (CPLR 207), which requires that a continuous absence from the State be no less than four months in duration, applies analogously to the proper interpretation of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i). Unlike CPLR 207, which mentions a minimum four month period of continuous absence from the State, CPL 30.10 (4)(a)(i) contains no minimum durational requirement. We refuse to read such a substantive element into this CPL provision.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Order affirmed. Opinion by Judge Smith. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Your arguments defy logic. The defense will bring it up but the appeals court has already said that it does not have to be continuous and that only the amount of days out of the state should equal the amount of the total time limitations.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Your arguments defy logic. The defense will bring it up but the appeals court has already said that it does not have to be continuous and that only the amount of days out of the state should equal the amount of the total time limitations.

Well said up to the last paragraph. You said: "... the appeals court has already said that it does not have to be continuous..."

I would have said: "... the appeals court has already said that it does not have to be a single continuous period, "any period" of continuous days meaning multiple periods are counted separately ... "

The courts can't ignore the "Any period" portion of the law.

WW

 

[BackAgain]

So your doing your happy dance well hold as it has to be interpreted. Obvious your opinion favors Trump.

You know it still does not matter. Trump changes his residency in mid 2019 and the hush money was paid in 2016. Continuously does not make a difference. They have time to still prosecute him. They are in the Grand Jury phase now, if the time had ran out they would not be doing this. His lawyer would ask for a dismissal. The extended time just adds to the amount of time that it has to be prosecuted.

So if the year was 2025 then trump would be doing his happy dance.

The appeals court has render a verdict that even if it is not continuous, the days that he was out of the state can be added up. This case had the defendant had move to another state but did comeback to NY on occasions

People v. Knobel, 94 N.Y.2d 226 | Casetext Search + Citator

NY appeals court has ruled on how it should be interpreted.
The People urge that the indictment was proper because the Statute of Limitations was tolled during all periods defendant was "continuously outside" the State. For an absence from the State to be "continuous" within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i), the People argue, it need not be a single uninterrupted period of time. We agree. The focus of the tolling provision of CPL 30.10 is "the difficulty of apprehending a defendant who is outside the State" (People v. Seda, 93 N.Y.2d 307, 312). Thus, all periods of a day or more that a nonresident defendant is out-of-State should be totaled and toll the Statute of Limitations.

Applied here, defendant's own calculations demonstrate limited periods of presence in the State, totaling 114 days (or 219 days), during the six and a half year period at issue. This establishes that between December 19, 1991 and February 24, 1998, defendant was continuously outside the State within the meaning of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i) during sufficient periods of time for us to conclude, as a matter of law, that the instant prosecution was timely commenced.

In so holding, we reject defendant's contention that the civil tolling provision (CPLR 207), which requires that a continuous absence from the State be no less than four months in duration, applies analogously to the proper interpretation of CPL 30.10(4)(a)(i). Unlike CPLR 207, which mentions a minimum four month period of continuous absence from the State, CPL 30.10 (4)(a)(i) contains no minimum durational requirement. We refuse to read such a substantive element into this CPL provision.

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Order affirmed. Opinion by Judge Smith. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Your arguments defy logic. The defense will bring it up but the appeals court has already said that it does not have to be continuous and that only the amount of days out of the state should equal the amount of the total time limitations.

Your citation to a NY State Court of Appeals ruling is far more persuasive than anything else you cobble together. I find their reasoning strange but if that case hasn’t been revisited, and if it’s still “good law” in NY, then my argument about the statute of limitations is probably destined to fail.

That said, they are talking about a non resident defendant. Until he actually moved to Fla., Trump was continually a NY State resident. They also talk about difficulty in apprehending. There was no such difficulty after Trump moved his residence from NY to Fla.

Other than that, I commend you for making a supported argument.

 

[WorldWatcher]

That said, they are talking about a non resident defendant. Until he actually moved to Fla., Trump was continually a NY State resident. They also talk about difficulty in apprehending. There was no such difficulty after Trump moved his residence from NY to Fla.

Whether he was continually a NY State resident isn't a factor. The periods pertain to his being physically in the State, not whether it was his State of residence on paper.

Trump was a NY State resident until he changed his residence in 2019, even though he spent very little time located physically in NY State (being has how he was President living in D.C. and spending a lot of time in his FL Country Club.)

Even with a change of official State of residence to FL, any time - even as a FL resident - spent in NY would count toward the SOL.

WW

 

[BackAgain]

Whether he was continually a NY State resident isn't a factor. The periods pertain to his being physically in the State, not whether it was his State of residence on paper.

Trump was a NY State resident until he changed his residence in 2019, even though he spent very little time located physically in NY State (being has how he was President living in D.C. and spending a lot of time in his FL Country Club.)

Even with a change of official State of residence to FL, any time - even as a FL resident - spent in NY would count toward the SOL.

WW

Nope. You misread the statute and the case law.

Kilroy was much closer. But even he is apparently mistaken:

People v. Jordan, 43 A.D.3d 1076 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read People v. Jordan, 43 A.D.3d 1076, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The Jordan case makes the crucial distinction that:

Although the toll provided by CPL 30.10 (4) (a) (ii) with respect to any period during which "the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence" applies to any period during which the police "have not identified the perpetrator at all and thus cannot determine where he or she is" ( People v Seda, 93 NY2d 307, 311) ….

Here, the problem for the state still exists. They knew all along the identity of the alleged “perpetrator.”

That snippet from the Jordan case continues: “it cannot be read to exclude the period of time during which the police are unaware of the commission of the offense itself.”

That snippet obviously also doesn’t save the State.

 

[AntonToo]

Trump expects to be arrested next Tuesday: