Zone1 Eyes glazed over time but for how long?

Foxfyre

Eternal optimist
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 11, 2007
68,935
34,534
2,645
Desert Southwest USA
This thread could easily belong in politics or elections or law and order, so I put it here as a compromise between those three.

It's time for summation and jury instruction in the hush money trial and the suggested schedule is mind numbing. The prosecution and defense will likely take a day or more to do their summations. The judge will then take several hours or up to a day to give the jury its instructions.

Talk about eyes glazing over. That would be sufficient to put a kid with extreme ADHD right to sleep.

The prosecution will do its best to paint the defendant as the worst kind of horrible criminal who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison doing hard labor.

The defense will try to convince one or more jurors--hopefully all 12--that the prosecution didn't make a case that Trump is guilty of any crime.

Then the jury goes into deliberation for however long it takes to come to a decision on each of the 34 charges against Trump. (Look for Merchan to delay the jury even longer maybe recessing a day or the rest of the week before he allows them to start deliberation.)

But despite keeping the jury working for far longer than it had to be, what then if one or more jurors refuses to convict and they are a hung jury? Merchan will surely tell them to return to the jury room and keep trying for a verdict. He could do that again and again. I don't know what legal rules or precedent there is out there for a judge to keep a jury indefinitely but could he keep doing that right up to election day?

I still think the jury acquitted OJ because the prosecution bored them to death with days of boring technical stuff. Would this jury convict just to get themselves out of jail?

And if the judge finally lets the hung jury go and declares a mistrial, will the prosecution and judge demand a new trial start right away and we do it all over again? This option of course would keep Trump off the campaign trail most of the time.
 
Last edited:
From what I've read, about 5 to 10% of criminal trials end with a hung jury with a single digit percentage more likely. In the hush money case, the conventional wisdom seems to be the chances of a guilty verdict are pretty high with a Manhattan jury hand picked mostly by the prosecution and judge, but it also suggests the possibility of a hung jury in this case is higher than the national averages for hung juries.

I can't find any odds for the probability of an acquittal.

But I think the odds are in favor of a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal given the lack of evidence of a crime presented so far and what is likely to be seen as judicial misconduct by Judge Merchan.
 
Voluminous evidence of records falsification have been presented and corroborated.

The blob is as guilty as sin.

Four possible outcomes; 3 are favorable to the blob.

Guilty with little punishment
Hung Jury
Acquittal

One not favorable....

Guilty with severe punishment. This is unlikely to happen which really begs the question, "What happened to the deep state????" Of course you'll never explain how this all-powerful, ever present entity that has worked so hard for so long decided to take the day off when it came time to put the blob away for good.

Honesty is your kryptonite.
 
Judge Merchan weaponized to the last. He made the defense go first in closing arguments today, against the defense's strong objections to that, so that the closing argument could not follow the prosecution and then the judge's jury instructions. That is so wrong and vicious, I hope some honest people will have this case looked at for possible disciplinary action if not disbarment.
 
Is it normal to have defense give the first closing argument not the prosecution?

In a criminal trial, it is indeed unusual for the defense to give the first closing argument. Typically, the prosecution presents its closing argument first, followed by the defense. Here’s why:

  1. Standard Procedure:
    • Traditionally, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • As a result, they are given the opportunity to present their case first during the trial, including opening statements and evidence.
    • The defense, on the other hand, responds to the prosecution’s case.
  2. Closing Arguments:
    • During closing arguments, both sides summarize their cases and attempt to persuade the jury.
    • The prosecution goes first, emphasizing the evidence that supports guilt and reinforcing their theory of the case.
    • The defense follows, highlighting any reasonable doubt, weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and alternative explanations.
  3. Exceptions:
    • There are exceptions to this order. For instance:
      • In some jurisdictions, the defense may choose to give the first closing argument if they believe it strategically benefits their case.
      • In complex or high-profile trials, the judge may allow deviations from the standard procedure.
  4. Judge’s Discretion:
    • Ultimately, the order of closing arguments is at the judge’s discretion.
    • The judge considers factors such as fairness, efficiency, and the specific circumstances of the trial.
In summary, while it’s not common, there can be variations based on the judge’s decisions or specific trial dynamics. However, the standard practice is for the prosecution to present its closing argument first.

In other words, Judge's call.
 
I noticed they started “work” at 9:33AM with breaks and lunch, then plan to exit at 4:30PM after taking 5 weeks to finish a one day job.

Clogged lazy Courts with 75% BS is why many criminals cannot get a fair outcome (those small percentage that could actually be innocent accept lesser convictions as plea bargin) after sitting for years in jail waiting.

All adding to massive State and Federal over-spending == debt. Reality is ugly.
 
Is it normal to have defense give the first closing argument not the prosecution?

In a criminal trial, it is indeed unusual for the defense to give the first closing argument. Typically, the prosecution presents its closing argument first, followed by the defense. Here’s why:

  1. Standard Procedure:
    • Traditionally, the prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • As a result, they are given the opportunity to present their case first during the trial, including opening statements and evidence.
    • The defense, on the other hand, responds to the prosecution’s case.
  2. Closing Arguments:
    • During closing arguments, both sides summarize their cases and attempt to persuade the jury.
    • The prosecution goes first, emphasizing the evidence that supports guilt and reinforcing their theory of the case.
    • The defense follows, highlighting any reasonable doubt, weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, and alternative explanations.
  3. Exceptions:
    • There are exceptions to this order. For instance:
      • In some jurisdictions, the defense may choose to give the first closing argument if they believe it strategically benefits their case.
      • In complex or high-profile trials, the judge may allow deviations from the standard procedure.
  4. Judge’s Discretion:
    • Ultimately, the order of closing arguments is at the judge’s discretion.
    • The judge considers factors such as fairness, efficiency, and the specific circumstances of the trial.
In summary, while it’s not common, there can be variations based on the judge’s decisions or specific trial dynamics. However, the standard practice is for the prosecution to present its closing argument first.

In other words, Judge's call.
And in this case the 'judge's call' stinks, is politically motivated, and involves absolutely no consideration for fairness.
 
I noticed they started “work” at 9:33AM with breaks and lunch, then plan to exit at 4:30PM after taking 5 weeks to finish a one day job.

Clogged lazy Courts with 75% BS is why many criminals cannot get a fair outcome (those small percentage that could actually be innocent accept lesser convictions as plea bargin) after sitting for years in jail waiting.

All adding to massive State and Federal over-spending == debt. Reality is ugly.
After the defense gave its scathing rebuke of Stormy and Cohen testimony and rested on Tuesday last Tuesday, there was plenty of time last week for closing arguments, jury instruction, jury deliberation before the Memorial Day weekend. But the judge inexplicably and unprecedented recessed the court for a whole week until today. This almost certainly was to have that defense fade in the juror's minds and forcing the defense to go first today was obviously for the same purpose. The last thing the jury will hear is the prosecution's manufactured case with no basis in actual law.

There has been little or no fairness in this trial from the beginning and again, I do hope that Merchan and Bragg will be disciplined for a politically motivated trial with a pre-determined outcome.

1716914783287.png
 
And while it likely isn't Merchan or Bragg's fault--I don't rule that out--Biden chimes in early saying he'll have a statement after the verdict. Could this presume he knows what the verdict will be? And I'm pretty sure his administration was instrumental in DeNiro et al showing up at the courthouse this morning to take advantage of media presence to spew his hateful bile.

This whole process started out maliciously political and seems to get worse day by day. I cannot see how anybody with any integrity can condone it.
 
Even the Washington Examiner almost puts us to sleep with the non facts/arguments they exhaustively listed of the prosecutions 'case' to come to this closing conclusion:

". . .There’s just not much to the Manhattan prosecution. The penalties sought are way out of line with the offenses alleged. It was brought by a prosecutor, Bragg, who campaigned on a platform of pursuing Trump. It’s flimsy, unfair, and politically motivated. Now that the trial is reaching its climax — the verdict — its injustices are becoming more and more obvious."
 
After the defense gave its scathing rebuke of Stormy and Cohen testimony and rested on Tuesday last Tuesday, there was plenty of time last week for closing arguments, jury instruction, jury deliberation before the Memorial Day weekend. But the judge inexplicably and unprecedented recessed the court for a whole week until today. This almost certainly was to have that defense fade in the juror's minds and forcing the defense to go first today was obviously for the same purpose. The last thing the jury will hear is the prosecution's manufactured case with no basis in actual law.

There has been little or no fairness in this trial from the beginning and again, I do hope that Merchan and Bragg will be disciplined for a politically motivated trial with a pre-determined outcome.

View attachment 953214
Want some cheese with your whine?

Its been a fair trial. Your lord and master is just garbage. You should pick better idols to worship.
 
Judge Merchan weaponized to the last. He made the defense go first in closing arguments today, against the defense's strong objections to that, so that the closing argument could not follow the prosecution and then the judge's jury instructions. That is so wrong and vicious, I hope some honest people will have this case looked at for possible disciplinary action if not disbarment.
Prosecution goes last. By law. The prosecution is said to have burden of proof hence they go last. At least that was what my lawyers told me. It will suck to find out my lawyers were liars.
 
Prosecution goes last. By law. The prosecution is said to have burden of proof hence they go last. At least that was what my lawyers told me. It will suck to find out my lawyers were liars.
Not this time. Trump's lawyers objected strenuously but Merchan made them go first. I looked it up and what little I could find said the defense almost always goes last but there is no specific law that it has to be that way.

When this case is overturned, this will almost certainly be included in pretty long list of judicial error re Merchan though.
 
Not this time. Trump's lawyers objected strenuously but Merchan made them go first. I looked it up and what little I could find said the defense almost always goes last but there is no specific law that it has to be that way.

When this case is overturned, this will almost certainly be included in pretty long list of judicial error re Merchan though.
Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have a right to present a defense. They are also entitled to give a closing argument. Usually, the prosecution first makes a closing argument, then the defense attorney. The prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, frequently gets the chance to respond to the defense's final argument.

What Are the Purposes and Limitations of a Closing Statement? - N…

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/closing-argument-criminal-trials.html

www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/closing-argument-criminal-trials.html
 
Under the Sixth Amendment, defendants have a right to present a defense. They are also entitled to give a closing argument. Usually, the prosecution first makes a closing argument, then the defense attorney. The prosecutor, who has the burden of proof, frequently gets the chance to respond to the defense's final argument.

What Are the Purposes and Limitations of a Closing Statement? - N…

View attachment 954199
www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/closing-argument-criminal-trials.html
Re the defense closes last rule:

". . .The formula reflects the fact that the person seeking relief has the burden of proof which if not overcome, results in no relief, by preventing the ability of a party to overcome the burden of proof from being thwarted in obtaining relief by a weak argument that is not rebutted even though it easily could be rebutted.

This said, it is a low level custom for how arguments should be made and not a hard and fast entrenched and codified rule in most cases. A court could (but rarely does) vary this rule on a case by case basis."
trial#:~:text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20rules%20of%20court%20have%20the,final%20closing%20statement%2C%20after%20the%20defense%27s%20closing%20statement.

That Merchan, almost certainly for the first time ever, refused to alllow the defense to close last will be almost certainly be counted among judicial error claims for an appeal.
 
Re the defense closes last rule:

". . .The formula reflects the fact that the person seeking relief has the burden of proof which if not overcome, results in no relief, by preventing the ability of a party to overcome the burden of proof from being thwarted in obtaining relief by a weak argument that is not rebutted even though it easily could be rebutted.

This said, it is a low level custom for how arguments should be made and not a hard and fast entrenched and codified rule in most cases. A court could (but rarely does) vary this rule on a case by case basis."
trial#:~:text=In%20the%20U.S.%2C%20rules%20of%20court%20have%20the,final%20closing%20statement%2C%20after%20the%20defense%27s%20closing%20statement.

That Merchan, almost certainly for the first time ever, refused to alllow the defense to close last will be almost certainly be counted among judicial error claims for an appeal.
Sorry, I have been the defendant, prosecution went last. But hey, I can use google better than you. I see your .com and raise you by a .org.

stackexchange??? The American Bar Association is the authority. Cant argue with the governing body.
Because the plaintiff or government has the burden of proof, the lawyer for that side is then entitled to make a concluding argument, sometimes called a rebuttal . This is a chance to respond to the defendant’s points and make one final appeal to the jury.
 
Sorry, I have been the defendant, prosecution went last. But hey, I can use google better than you. I see your .com and raise you by a .org.

stackexchange??? The American Bar Association is the authority. Cant argue with the governing body.
And how is that different from the information I posted? (Almost everybody can use Google better than I can.)
 

Forum List

Back
Top