Should Trump Trial Go Direct To Supreme Court?

[Leo123]

We are a REPUBLIC! The Supreme Court will not intervene in State law. There has to be a Constitutional issue......after it has run its course in the State Courts....

Trump was convicted on a Federal beef in a State trial. That’s your problem.

 

[Couchpotato]

What about the instructions leads you to believe that?

That the jury didn't need to agree on what predicate crime Trump committed and was covering up in order for them to convict on the FBR as a felony charge. If there's only one crime alleged then why the need for that instruction? Bragg insinuated 3 separate crimes Trump may have committed that were being potentially covered up by the FBR but never really said which one he landed on and the judge helped him along by telling the jury they didnt have to agree on which one was the only they thought he committed.

 

[Skylar]

Yup, the trial was a Democrat Party scam.. everyone knows it and the appeals process in New York is likely corrupted as well. The voters need an honest resolution before the election.

On what grounds? Remember, every court to assess the constitutionality of the case, state or federal, has already affirmed its constitutionality. Trump has lost every appeal, state or federal.

So you'd need something new, during the trial itself, to overturn the case. And for the USSC to get involved, something that violated a federal protection. And this only after every State appeal has been exhausted.

What are you alleging specifically, with evidence?

 

[Delldude]

There is an appeals process for the State of NY.

Red state AG's can file an election interference case directly to SCOTUS.

 

[Blaster]

Americans are sick and tired of political show trials.

 

[Delldude]

Bragg insinuated 3 separate crimes Trump may have committed that were being potentially covered up by the FBR but never really said which one he landed on and the judge helped him along by telling the jury they didnt have to agree on which one was the only they thought he committed.

And His defense wasn't informed of these charges and was not prepared for them. 6th amendment.

 

[Couchpotato]

And His defense wasn't informed of these charges and was not prepared for them. 6th amendment.

That's the thing Trump wasnt actually charged with any of those things. The crimes were just insinuated.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That the jury didn't need to agree on what predicate crime Trump committed and was covering up in order for them to convict on the FBR as a felony charge. If there's only one crime alleged then why the need for that instruction? Bragg insinuated 3 separate crimes Trump may have committed that were being potentially covered up by the FBR but never really said which one he landed on and the judge helped him along by telling the jury they didnt have to agree on which one was the only they thought he committed.

They didn’t need to agree. Any or all of those crimes could apply and elevate the charges to felonies. That’s how the state law works.
I only gave you the easiest scenario to understand which should be more than sufficient.

Took about a minute to search up…

What is the New York election law at the center of Trump's hush money trial?​

What is the New York election law at the center of Trump's hush money trial?

Prosecutors allege Trump falsified records to hide a violation of Election Law Section 17-152 – which prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

abcnews.go.com

“Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified the records to hide a violation of New York Election Law Section 17-152 – a rarely used law that prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

"Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct," he said.

Prosecutors offered three theories about the unlawful means -- a tax crime, falsification of bank records or campaign finance violations. According to Merchan, the jury does not need to agree which of the three unlawful means was employed to convict the former president.

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were," Merchan told jurors.”

 

[Delldude]

That's the thing Trump wasnt actually charged with any of those things. The crimes were just insinuated.

Merchan let the jury pick and choose which charge or charges they thought applied. That's how the misdemeanors were elevated to felonies. I don't think that's the jury's responsibility. From what I read, when presented with multiple charges like that, they have to be unanimous on all charges.

The mission here, IMO, was to get Trump found guilty at whatever means necessary, so they can do what they're doing now......they know the appeals would happen way down the road, so dem's have nothing to lose, everything to gain with a bogus trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yup, the trial was a Democrat Party scam.. everyone knows it and the appeals process in New York is likely corrupted as well. The voters need an honest resolution before the election.

Yes it should go to the supreme Court

 

[Leo123]

That the jury didn't need to agree on what predicate crime Trump committed and was covering up in order for them to convict on the FBR as a felony charge. If there's only one crime alleged then why the need for that instruction? Bragg insinuated 3 separate crimes Trump may have committed that were being potentially covered up by the FBR but never really said which one he landed on and the judge helped him along by telling the jury they didnt have to agree on which one was the only they thought he committed.

Bragg needed to tie the misdemeanor to a federal crime, since the here was no proven federal crime, he told them to attach their verdict to basically any crime they wanted and he gave them 3 examples. Totally illegal and a miscarriage of justice.

 

[Delldude]

They didn’t need to agree. Any or all of those crimes could apply and elevate the charges to felonies. That’s how the state law works.

According to SCOTUS precedent in two cases on multiple charges, the jury has to be unanimous as per COTUS. cited by Greta Van Susteren and Julie Kelly.

 

[Couchpotato]

They didn’t need to agree. Any or all of those crimes could apply and elevate the charges to felonies. That’s how the state law works.
I only gave you the easiest scenario to understand which should be more than sufficient.

Took about a minute to search up…

What is the New York election law at the center of Trump's hush money trial?​

What is the New York election law at the center of Trump's hush money trial?

Prosecutors allege Trump falsified records to hide a violation of Election Law Section 17-152 – which prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

abcnews.go.com

“Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified the records to hide a violation of New York Election Law Section 17-152 – a rarely used law that prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

"Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct," he said.

Prosecutors offered three theories about the unlawful means -- a tax crime, falsification of bank records or campaign finance violations. According to Merchan, the jury does not need to agree which of the three unlawful means was employed to convict the former president.

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were," Merchan told jurors.”

Dont you think the DA should KNOW what crime (s) a defendant has committed in order to charge him? Oh that's right this isnt about law and order or justice it's just about getting the big bad orange man off the ballot or "saving democracy"...

You are such a ******* joke.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They didn’t need to agree. Any or all of those crimes could apply and elevate the charges to felonies. That’s how the state law works.
I only gave you the easiest scenario to understand which should be more than sufficient.

Took about a minute to search up…

What is the New York election law at the center of Trump's hush money trial?​

What is the New York election law at the center of Trump's hush money trial?

Prosecutors allege Trump falsified records to hide a violation of Election Law Section 17-152 – which prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

abcnews.go.com

“Prosecutors allege that Trump falsified the records to hide a violation of New York Election Law Section 17-152 – a rarely used law that prohibits groups from using unlawful means to influence an election.

"Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct," he said.

Prosecutors offered three theories about the unlawful means -- a tax crime, falsification of bank records or campaign finance violations. According to Merchan, the jury does not need to agree which of the three unlawful means was employed to convict the former president.

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were," Merchan told jurors.”

Wrong

Juries and Verdicts in Criminal Trials​

Most of the concern over unanimity in verdicts arises from criminal trials. A long history of case law and Constitutional interpretation establishes that criminal trials must have 12 jurors. In federal court, juries must reach a unanimous verdict in all criminal proceedings.

State courts have required unanimous verdicts since 2020. Before that year, nearly all states followed the federal criminal trial procedure. Two states—Oregon and Louisiana—allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these types of verdicts in Apodaca v. Oregon (406 U.S. 404) (1972).

In 2020, the Court overturned Apodaca with Ramos v. Louisiana (140 U.S. 1390). The Court reasoned that a deeper historical examination of the criminal justice system revealed an intentional bias against some jurors. The non-unanimous verdict helped ensure guilty verdicts for African Americans by eliminating one or two African American "not-guilty" votes (Justice Kavanaugh concurrence at 1418).

The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.

https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/must-all-jury-verdicts-be-unanimous.html#:~:text=Juries%20and%20Verdicts%20in%20Criminal%20Trials&text=In%20federal%20court%2C%20juries%20must,required%20unanimous%20verdicts%20since%202020.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Merchan let the jury pick and choose which charge or charges they thought applied. That's how the misdemeanors were elevated to felonies. I don't think that's the jury's responsibility. From what I read, when presented with multiple charges like that, they have to be unanimous on all charges.

The mission here, IMO, was to get Trump found guilty at whatever means necessary, so they can do what they're doing now......they know the appeals would happen way down the road, so dem's have nothing to lose, everything to gain with a bogus trial.

No.
You’re confusing the 34 counts charged with the crime that elevates them to felonies.

Read my link. It explains it.

 

[BackAgain]

No.
You’re confusing the 34 counts charged with the crime that elevates them to felonies.

Read my link. It explains it.

You’re the confused one.

None of the 34 counts would be a felony absent the uncharged and unspecified “other” crime which frankly doesn’t exist.

Have an adult explain it to you.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Americans are sick and tired of political show trials.

I’m sick and tired of Americans being lazy dolts who just repeat what they heard rather than actually trying to understand what actually happened.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You’re the confused one.

None of the 34 counts would be a felony absent the uncharged and unspecified “other” crime which frankly doesn’t exist.

Have an adult explaining to you.

The jury agreed it not only exists but did so in all 34 counts.

No. It’s you who are still confused.

 

[BackAgain]

I’m sick and tired of Americans being lazy dolts who just repeat what they heard rather than actually trying to understand what actually happened.

Then stop doing it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

And His defense wasn't informed of these charges and was not prepared for them. 6th amendment.

They weren’t charges.