Should Trump Trial Go Direct To Supreme Court?

[BackAgain]

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

No. It’s you who are still confused.

No. It’s you.

Not one of the counts would be a felony absent some unspecified “other” crime.

And because of the time bar, none of them would even be a misdemeanor without the sordid and invalid effort to elevate them to felonies by claiming that the accused had some “intent” to commit or conceal some other (unspecified) crime.

Don’t be lazy. Look it up. Get educated.

 

[BackAgain]

They weren’t charges.

They were “other” unspecified crimes about which the accused supposedly had some “intent.”

Don’t engage in double talk.

You know you’re full of it. We all do.

 

[BackAgain]

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.

Maybe somewhere in the penumbra clauses there’s an exception for alleging an intent to commit some “other” crime (albeit it an unspecified other crime) which relieves the government of the burden of proof or the burden to prove its case to a unanimous jury.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

They only must be unanimous on the 34 counts of falsifying business records. They were. The elevating crime was discussed through the testimony.

Let’s not forget that Cohen had already been charged with and pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations with the hush money payments. That plot is obvious at this point.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Maybe somewhere in the penumbra clauses there’s an exception for alleging an intent to commit some “other” crime (albeit it an unspecified other crime) which relieves the government of the burden of proof or the burden to prove its case to a unanimous jury.

Guilty until you prove you're innocent
The democrat way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They only must be unanimous on the 34 counts of falsifying business records. They were. The elevating crime was discussed through the testimony.

Let’s not forget that Cohen had already been charged with and pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations with the hush money payments. That plot is obvious at this point.

Wrong
And Cohen went to prison for lying.
And he was busted for lying this time

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

Trump wasn’t charged for the elevating crime.
The DA did know. It’s in the indictment. The judge outlined what they were.

It’s about your inability to understand despite me spoon feeding you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trump wasn’t charged for the elevating crime.
The DA did know. It’s in the indictment. The judge outlined what they were.

It’s about your inability to understand despite me spoon feeding you.

The verdict will overturned it should be fast tracked before the supreme court

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

D’oh…
The jury was unanimous on the 34 counts charged, dupe.

 

[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 explain it to you.

An adult?
It’s reality, dupe. You’re the one struggling.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

D’oh…
The jury was unanimous on the 34 counts charged, dupe.

That wasn't the jury instructions numbnuts

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Then stop doing it.

Getting pissy with twatty retorts doesn’t gain you any leverage.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That wasn't the jury instructions numbnuts

It was, dope.
Read my link above.

 

[BackAgain]

D’oh…
The jury was unanimous on the 34 counts charged, dupe.

Prove that they agreed unanimously on which (unalleged) “other” crime was supposedly committed.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

They were “other” unspecified crimes about which the accused supposedly had some “intent.”

Don’t engage in double talk.

You know you’re full of it. We all do.

It was specified by statute with examples given for clarity.
Obviously too complex for you to nail down.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong
And Cohen went to prison for lying.
And he was busted for lying this time

Get yourself up to speed.

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations​

Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Eight Counts, Including Criminal Tax Evasion And Campaign Finance Violations

www.justice.gov

Cohen pleads guilty, implicates Trump in hush-money scheme​

Cohen pleads guilty, implicates Trump in hush-money scheme

NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer and fixer, pleaded guilty Tuesday to campaign-finance violations and other charges, saying Trump directed him to arrange the payment of hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels and a former Playboy model to fend off damage

apnews.com

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The verdict will overturned it should be fast tracked before the supreme court

You can only hope anyway.

 

[BackAgain]

Getting pissy with twatty retorts doesn’t gain you any leverage.

Exposing you is so easy. And your comments are vapid prissy nonsense.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Prove that they agreed unanimously on which (unalleged) “other” crime was supposedly committed.

Why would I do that? It was not required to do so.
They were unanimous on the 34 counts charged as they were required to be.

 

[d0gbreath]

Whenever you have an extraordinary situation which affects a Presidential election, the precedent is that the SCOTUS takes up the case (Bush v Gore, 2000). This is just as critical.

The NY case didn't have anything to do with a presidential election. The verdict does tarnish one of the candidates, but that's life.