Judge Cannon Blocks Release of Jack Smith’s Final Report on Trump Lawfare Cases

Oh good, a legal expert. Could you help me with the term (not to go off topic here) "felon", "convicted felon" and "unconvicted felon"? Thanks in advance.

Does one become a felon by committing a felony, or only when one is convicted of a felony?

Felon = derived from felony, a class of crime normally associated with eligibility for a minimum confinement of 1 year or more in a government penal institution.

Convicted Felon = Someone convicted of a felony.

"Unconvicted Felon" = Never heard of it. From a legal perspective you are either a "Convicted Felon" or not. From a legal perspective there is no such thing. From a general populatoin perspective you can have someone that they conclude committed a felony crime but went unconvicted of that crime.

For example, Trump committed espionage under 18 USC 793(e) [a felony], the case was dismissed on a technicality and not he merits of the crime. Some may refer to Trump as a Convicted Felon under a New York State conviction and an "Unconvicted Felon" for espionage.

WW
 
There is also "the preponderance of the evidence" standard. Which applies here?

No, from a legal perspective, "preponderance of the evidence" is a civil trial standard not a criminal conviction standard which is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

WW
 
No, from a legal perspective, "preponderance of the evidence" is a civil trial standard not a criminal conviction standard which is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

WW
So the Trump case before Cannon was criminal and not civil?
 
So then the presumption of innocence applies?
Yes. Not really sure what you are getting at. The presumption of innocence applies, the beyond a reasonable doubt applies, guilty verdict would require a unanimous decision by the jury. You got all those cards in your hand and yet your first defense is, "they are out to get me". Like I said, screams guilty.
 
As a function of court proceedings? Yes.

For the general public? No.

WW
Why should the general public be exempt from that?

In the 3 or 4 jury trials I've been involved in, the court made it clear that the jury should presume the defendant to be innocent until the government can prove his guilt. That was 30 years ago of course, and our criminal justice system ain't what it used to be.
 
Yes. Not really sure what you are getting at. The presumption of innocence applies, the beyond a reasonable doubt applies, guilty verdict would require a unanimous decision by the jury. You got all those cards in your hand and yet your first defense is, "they are out to get me". Like I said, screams guilty.
Well, I've never voted for Trump and do not consider him to be an honorable man, but it seems to me the raid in Palm Beach was way off base and without merit. How can the ex POTUS be prosecuted for whatever the hell it was about documents when his opponent Biden also had such documents in his garage? It seems pure politics to me, and a gross abuse of the criminal justice system. Lawfare, as they call it.
 
Why should the general public be exempt from that?

Really? Thought control telling people they can't think a criminal is a criminal just because? That they must think and speak as if the person isn't responsible for their crimes?

In the 3 or 4 jury trials I've been involved in, the court made it clear that the jury should presume the defendant to be innocent until the government can prove his guilt. That was 30 years ago of course, and our criminal justice system ain't what it used to be.

Those are court proceedings and as I've very clearly said, "presumption of innocence" is a court concept.

WW
 
Well, I've never voted for Trump and do not consider him to be an honorable man, but it seems to me the raid in Palm Beach was way off base and without merit. How can the ex POTUS be prosecuted for whatever the hell it was about documents when his opponent Biden also had such documents in his garage? It seems pure politics to me, and a gross abuse of the criminal justice system. Lawfare, as they call it.
Dude, let me explain the difference between Biden possessing documents and Trump. Biden was like come search the place, I am sorry, it was an honest mistake. Trump was hiding the documents, in a flippin ballroom. Biden didn't share the documents with anyone, Trump was bragging about them and showing them to a member of the press, you know, the press he hates. I mean there is no comparison.
 
Really? Thought control telling people they can't think a criminal is a criminal just because? That they must think and speak as if the person isn't responsible for their crimes?



Those are court proceedings and as I've very clearly said, "presumption of innocence" is a court concept.

WW

You answer my first question with "Really?" and then 2 other questions. That tactic comes across as dodging just why the public should not be allowed to consider the presumption of innocence when I've heard a few judges instruct the jury, members of the public, to do just that.

Is there a legal prohibition against the public considering an accused to be innocent until proven guilty, or are you just using a sort of common sense or hunches?
 
Dude, let me explain the difference between Biden possessing documents and Trump. Biden was like come search the place, I am sorry, it was an honest mistake. Trump was hiding the documents, in a flippin ballroom. Biden didn't share the documents with anyone, Trump was bragging about them and showing them to a member of the press, you know, the press he hates. I mean there is no comparison.
If Trump was hiding them, why didn't he really hide them, like in a place NOT where he lived? Why did he cooperate with the FBI if he was trying to keep them secret? It's OK to keep such documents in a garage but not in a ballroom? LOL you're beginning to sound like Jack Smith.
 
You answer my first question with "Really?" and then 2 other questions. That tactic comes across as dodging just why the public should not be allowed to consider the presumption of innocence when I've heard a few judges instruct the jury, members of the public, to do just that.

Because you keep mixing court proceedings and the public in general like you do here.

The "Public" (as in individuals in public) CAN use the "presumption of innocence" as you descript. It is not required though, other members of the public can look at evidence and say "he's guilty of the crime" and that is fine.

However in court the Judges MUST maintain the presumption standard and ensure that applies to the jury. If the Judge feels during voir dire that juror cannot maintain that standard, then the Judge dismisses the juror from service.

Is there a legal prohibition against the public considering an accused to be innocent until proven guilty,

No. Just as there is no prohibition for some in the public to consider an accused as guilty of the crime even without a court conviction.

or are you just using a sort of common sense or hunches?

Logic.

What applies in the court room is not what has to apply to the population in general.

WW
 
If Trump was hiding them, why didn't he really hide them, like in a place NOT where he lived? Why did he cooperate with the FBI if he was trying to keep them secret? It's OK to keep such documents in a garage but not in a ballroom? LOL you're beginning to sound like Jack Smith.

He didn't cooperate with the FBI. The FBI had to get a Federal court to issue search warrant which removed any "voluntary" aspect to it. They forced Trump to allow a search.

Probably because he felt as a former President no one had the balls to get a search warrant. He was wrong.

WW
 
NO, Trump is not president at the moment, and no, Trump was not president when those classified documents were found at Mar-a-lago.

As to the American people finding Trump not guilty, delusional. Last I checked a guilty verdict, or a proclamation of innocence, require a unanimous vote. You might could argue it was jury nullification, but that, too, requires a unanimous vote.

Look, I don't know how hard it is to understand. An innocent person doesn't immediately jump to a "they are out to get me" defense. That is what a guilty person does.
Don't matter. Presidents get to build president libraries.
 
The proper thing to have done.

At minimum, it would be incredibly prejudicial to the two remaining co-defendants, who filed for injunctive relief on Monday. And which relief has been granted on Tuesday.


Judge Cannon's temporary injunction lasts until three days after a federal appeals court issues a ruling on a pending motion to block Jack Smith's report in a case involving other defendants in the classified documents case.
Lawyers for Trump's co-defendants Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliviera asked Judge Cannon in a Monday night filing to block Jack Smith's report based on her previous ruling that the special counsel's appointment was unconstitutional.
US Attorney General Merrick Garland is now blocked from releasing, sharing, or transmitting" Jack Smith's final report – "or any drafts of such Report outside the Department of Justice, or (b) otherwise releasing, distributing, conveying, or sharing with anyone outside the Department of Justice any information or conclusions in the Final Report or in drafts thereof."
NBC News reported:
Separately, Trump's lawyers have asked Merrick Garland to fire Jack Smith and block the release of his final report.


Hide the truth about Trump's illegal activities, as long as possible. We are the party of Law and Order unless it's our Orange God who is breaking the Law.
 

Forum List

Back
Top