About the prospects of an eventual verdict in Trump NYC case

[westwall]

Hung juries do not legally prevent the People from trying the case again.

I suspect that after the election, there will be no particular desire in trying again. And no benefit from their jaundiced partisan political perspective. I wouldn’t mind a hung jury.

That’s an interesting question.

Normally, appellate courts won’t touch a case that isn’t “ripe” for appellate scrutiny. But as a matter of the public interest, I am not sure that any appellate court could do so without the benefit of a full trial record.

If the jury is unable to convict, no Appellate Court will want that kind of public scrutiny of the bullshit that Bragg was pulling.

 

[BackAgain]

Look, man, I realize that you guys have put all your hopes and dreams in this guy... but he's DOA on this case.

Look, dufus. Your wet dream may not come to pass. So, stop addressing your imbecility toward me. Your ranting crap is of no real interest.

Put all your hopes in a partisan jury pool in a deep blue cesspool jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, I have more faith in the appeals process. Lawfare is gonna fail.
Sucks to be a moron like you.

 

[JoeB131]

Look, dufus. Your wet dream may not come to pass. So, stop addressing your imbecility toward me. Your ranting crap is of no real interest.

Put all your hopes in a partisan jury pool in a deep blue cesspool jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, I have more faith in the appeals process. Lawfare is gonna fail.

Why would the appeals courts overturn a criminal court when guilt was established.

What's the legal theory.

Trump is on tape with Cohen discussing payoffs to Karen McDougal.

It doesn't take a big leap of logic that the same was done with Daniels.

 

[BackAgain]

Why would the appeals courts overturn a criminal court when guilt was established.

It wouldn’t. It would overturn a verdict when the law under which it was brought was legally invalid, you dope. As here.

What's the legal theory.

It’s in the indictment (each and every absurd count).

Trump is on tape with Cohen discussing payoffs to Karen McDougal.

“Payoffs?” Nah.

It doesn't take a big leap of logic that the same was done with Daniels.

It requires actual evidence and a valid legal theory. Not something you have or care about.

 

[WEATHER53]

A hung jury is no verdict at all.

Given the requirement for a unanimous verdict, all it means is that the burden of proof has not been met but that there’s no complete agreement even about that.

Hung equates to not guilty even if that’s not the definition of it

 

[WEATHER53]

Actually, you shouldn’t use the word “actually” and then recite your unproved fictional claims.

No proof of that.


No proof of that.


No proof of that.

Wrong. And, in any event, your mindless speculation is worthless as always.

Actually is another word definition change attempt by lib loons

 

[BackAgain]

Hung equates to not guilty even if that’s not the definition of it

Not really. At least we’d agree that it falls short of an acquittal if it led to a retrial which, itself, ended in a conviction.

 

[WEATHER53]

Not really. At least we’d agree that it falls short of an acquittal if it led to a retrial which, itself, ended in a conviction.

Hung is the prosecution did not establish their burden of proof to a sufficient number of jurors. Remember he does not have to prove himself innocent despite lib loon contentions that he does.
Retries are rare and there will be no political will to witch hunt him further.

 

[BackAgain]

Hung is the prosecution did not establish their burden of proof to a sufficient number of jurors. Remember he does not have to prove himself innocent despite lib loon contentions that he does.
Retries are rare and there will be no political will to witch hunt him further.

A hung jury is nothing more and nothing less than one which cannot reach an animus decision.

Since a hung jury allows the People to “try again,” which they can’t do at all if there has been an acquittal, it is absolutely true that a hung jury isn’t an acquittal nor is it a conviction.

Retrials after hung juries are not that rare.

 

[WEATHER53]

A hung jury is nothing more and nothing less than one which cannot reach an animus decision.

Since a hung jury allows the People to “try again,” which they can’t do at all if there has been an acquittal, it is absolutely true that a hung jury isn’t an acquittal nor is it a conviction.

Retrials after hung juries are not that rare.

They are rare and mostly for capital cases
An acquittal is best but the witch hunt is Way Too Entrenched for that to happen. Hell a number of jurors had their “get him” discovered and later were removed. Pretty much proof that the pre decided are still on the jury
So, a hung jury is the likely best outcome and I’ll gladly take it

 

[BackAgain]

They are rare and mostly for capital cases
An acquittal is best but the witch hunt is Way Too Entrenched for that to happen. Hell a number of jurors had their “get him” discovered and later were removed. Pretty much proof that the pre decided are still on the jury
So, a hung jury is the likely best outcome and I’ll gladly take it

I am talking about NY cases. There are no NY State capital cases anymore.

Hung juries happen. They are not all that rare.

And beyond that, when they happen, it is also true that they don’t all get re-tried.

I’d absolutely settle for a hung jury. I don’t believe the facts of the law support a conviction. Hell, I don’t believe they support even an indictment. But I do see a conviction as being more than possible. So, my larger hope is found in the appellate process.

It would be a joy to be surprised by a NY County jury in this case with a well deserved acquittal. My oh my. How our libturds would cry.

 

[JoeB131]

It wouldn’t. It would overturn a verdict when the law under which it was brought was legally invalid, you dope.

Except Trump has appealed the shit out of the indictment and has come away empty-handed every time.

 

[BackAgain]

Except Trump has appealed the shit out of the indictment and has come away empty-handed every time.

Wrong.

 

[Clipper]

wrong. Honest and intelligent jurors with common sense will observe that there is zero evidence of guilt and will therefore try to persuade the Potato shitstains on the jury to do what the oath requires: vote not guilty, you Potato shitstain.


The trial may take even longer. I’ll buy you your first tampon. After that, you’re on your own.

I’d be happy if we end up with a hung jury. Your tears would be like acid on your face.

I don't need a tampon, you Trump asseating douche. You need one because it is YOUR lover boy on trial. His first one. Judging by your tears, you'll need a case of Kleenex.

But thanks by showing with your slander of the jury that your ass is running scared.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't need a tampon,

Yeah. You do. And, take a Midol too.

 

[Clipper]

Yeah. You do. And, take a Midol too.

At least Melania won't have to worry about gone to seed Trump shagging any more pornstars, then paying hush money like the $130,000.

Gee, who knew that a pornstar would have the former fake potus by the short & curlies?

 

[BackAgain]

At least Melania won't

Zzz

 

[White 6]

The statute of limitations expired, no matter what he personally may have done.

I await, the Trump lawyers making that case. Good luck. Looks like you will need it, or these charges would not be going to trial, if that simply avoided.

 

[White 6]

"Probably".....the favorite word of the Reich cultists....

I was just being considerate. I will wait for the jury verdict and go with whatever, since I am not sitting in on the trial.

 

[White 6]

No. You falsely contend that he is.

Statistically, the odds of a guilty verdict on some count go up with the number of individual charges. Just sayin...