Trump Hush $$$ Trial Jury Instructions - Post-Summation Instructions - Facts Here

[Weatherman2020]

Offering up multiple links to Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury. Why? So we all can find an easy link to facts that are sure to be misrepresented (by more than one side), misconstrued, misunderstood, and misinterpreted.

People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24

www.documentcloud.org

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/d458fdbff3cd7a41/84784522-full.pdf

Here's a discussion of things in Business Insider (no pay wall):

How they'll decide: Read the jury instructions for the historic Trump hush-money trial

As Donald Trump's jury deliberates in Manhattan, here are their guiding documents and instructions.

www.businessinsider.com

In the end we either believe in and trust the system, or we don't. Cafeteria style support of the system is part of the problem we love when the courts do this, we hate the courts when they do that. Our nation exists and has only prospered for as long as it has (a short time in democratic, republican history) because it started out anew with an extralegal set of meetings that gave us our present constitution.

Extralegal. Interesting fact. The so-called American Revolution was based and and supported by extralegal means.

Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.

Thats not even legal in North Korea.

 

[SavannahMann]

Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.

Thats not even legal in North Korea.

Where do you fanboys get this stuff? The post you quoted had the actual jury instructions linked. The actual document that the Judge read verbatim

This clearly says that the verdict on each count must be unanimous. No four and four nonsense is mentioned anywhere in the document.

So where did you hear this lie and why in the name of God would you believe it?

 

[Dante]

Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.

Thats not even legal in North Korea.

Nope. Judge Merchan said what?



Post what he actually said.


Post #13:


Intent & Motive:

"Trump leans into the defense table to rifle through the papers in front of him as Justice Merchan tells the jurors that their verdict must be unanimous."

Trump Hush $$$ Trial Jury Instructions - Post-Summation Instructions - Facts Here

Offering up multiple links to Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury. Why? So we all can find an easy link to facts that are sure to be misrepresented (by more than one side), misconstrued, misunderstood, and misinterpreted...

www.usmessageboard.com

Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial

False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign.

apnews.com

 

[Dante]

Where do you fanboys get this stuff? The post you quoted had the actual jury instructions linked. The actual document that the Judge read verbatim

View attachment 954061

This clearly says that the verdict on each count must be unanimous. No four and four nonsense is mentioned anywhere in the document.

So where did you hear this lie and why in the name of God would you believe it?

From partisan rags and hyper-snowflakey Trump apologists.

Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial

False. Merchan said that to convict Trump the jury will have to find unanimously, on each of 34 felony counts, that he falsified business records and that he did so with the intent of concealing another crime — in this case, violating a state election law during his 2016 campaign.

apnews.com

Post #13:
Intent & Motive:

"Trump leans into the defense table to rifle through the papers in front of him as Justice Merchan tells the jurors that their verdict must be unanimous."

Trump Hush $$$ Trial Jury Instructions - Post-Summation Instructions - Facts Here

Offering up multiple links to Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury. Why? So we all can find an easy link to facts that are sure to be misrepresented (by more than one side), misconstrued, misunderstood, and misinterpreted...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[surada]

Maybe Trump is desperate.

Trump said, "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Trump wrote on Truth Social on December 3, 2022. "Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

 

[Dante]

Maybe Trump is desperate.

Trump said, "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Trump wrote on Truth Social on December 3, 2022. "Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

What an imbecile. And his cult following laps it up, or completely ignores how imbecilic he sounds.

 

[Dante]

Maybe Trump is desperate.

Trump said, "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," Trump wrote on Truth Social on December 3, 2022. "Our great 'Founder' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!

Where it stands now:

The jury is back in the room. The court reporter is on the stand preparing for her role reading the testimony. It’s not yet clear who will go first, the judge with his instructions or the reporter reading the four portions of testimony.

The judge asks the jury whether they want to hear the testimony or instructions first. We hear the foreman's voice for the first time since jury selection. He asks to hear the jury instructions. As a reminder, the judge is beginning with page 6, which starts with directing jurors how to consider evidence, and ending with page 35, where the judge explains how his instructions on the law apply to the counts in the case.

This will likely take about 35 minutes, and given that we went over it yesterday morning, we will keep updates spare, unless something obvious that we did not pick up on yesterday jumps out. We published the full set of jury instructions here.
[[[ As a reminder, we published the full set of jury instructions here. Read the Jury Instructions in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial ]]]


The jury specifically asked in its note for the judge to repeat his instructions on what are called “evidentiary inferences” — that is, reasonable inferences that can be drawn from what they heard at trial. They asked to hear the following analogy, which he provided yesterday and just repeated:

“Suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night.”



As the judge has re-read his instructions to the jury, Trump has had his eyes closed, and his chin has sometimes slumped to his chest. At other times, his head has been slightly pitched back, like a man tanning.


The judge is now in the middle of page 17 of the jury instructions, explaining to the jurors that they can consider whether any witness would benefit from his or her own testimony. That places us about halfway through this readback of the instructions

 

[Dante]

Evidently in NY the jury does NOT get a written copy of them. More stupid.

observations from within the courtroom
here we go:

There has been confusion in recent days about why the jurors weren’t able to take a written copy of Justice Merchan’s legal instructions into the jury room while they deliberate. Let me help clarify this. A judge’s instructions are, in effect, his or her guidance to jurors about how to apply the law to the facts of the case. The New York Court of Appeals — the state’s highest court — ruled in a 1987 case that a judge cannot provide a copy of their written instructions to the jury.

While the court’s interpretation of the law found that the instructions could not be provided over defense objections, it has been widely viewed as more broadly prohibiting the provision of the judge’s legal instructions.

 

[Dante]

This Jury has been seriously underrated. Attacks on them were personal. They're New Yorkers. They're tough yet fair. Something Trump never learned to be because he was always an outsider -- an incredibly wealthy trust fund baby who was born on third base. Can't blame him for being who he is because being in the Lucky Sperm Club is a roll of the dice. But we can fault him for what he ultimatley became -- a disgusting degenerate, with no self-awareness.

“accessorial liability”

Justice Merchan is now at the point of the instructions where he’s describing “accessorial liability,” the portion that suggests the defendant doesn't need to have actively participated in the commission of the crime to be found guilty, as long as he in some way directed or intentionally aided the criminal conduct of someone else. In this case, that relates to the alleged falsification of business records.

“accessorial liability”

The jury now hears the complex charges: Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records to conceal a second crime, a conspiracy to aid an election by unlawful means. The options for those unlawful means include several other crimes.

So, again, each individual criminal charge here contains within it several other crimes. No wonder the jurors asked to hear this again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.

Thats not even legal in North Korea.

That's not true. Every crime that is charged must have a unanimous outcome.

WW

 

[Dante]

The readback is complete, and the jurors are being excused to continue their deliberations. They have asked to use both headphones and speakers to listen to evidence that includes an audio portion.

Trump departs for his holding room , with his entourage in tow. His lawyer Todd Blanche appears to give Andrew Giuliani, at the back of the room, a grin.

 

[Dante]

The readback is complete, and the jurors are being excused to continue their deliberations. They have asked to use both headphones and speakers to listen to evidence that includes an audio portion.

Trump departs for his holding room , with his entourage in tow. His lawyer Todd Blanche appears to give Andrew Giuliani, at the back of the room, a grin.

Pecker and Cohen’s testimony, jury instructions: This is what was read back in court.​

Specifically, the jurors asked for the following details to be read back:

Four portions of testimony​

“We, the jury, request David Pecker’s testimony regarding phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting.”

Mr. Pecker, who took the stand first, provided testimony over several days that laid the foundation for the prosecution’s narrative throughout the rest of the trial. He spoke about multiple private conversations he said he had with Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen about helping the campaign.

On his second and third days of testimony, Mr. Pecker discussed a meeting of investors in June 2016 involving the tabloid’s parent company, American Media Inc., that was interrupted by a phone call from Mr. Trump.

Mr. Pecker said that he stepped away during a presentation to talk to Mr. Trump, who suggested that he knew Karen McDougal, a Playboy model who claimed to have had sex with Mr. Trump during a 10-month affair starting in 2006 and was at the time discussing selling the rights to her story to A.M.I.

“Karen is a nice girl,” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Pecker. “What do you think I should do?”

Mr. Pecker said he answered that Mr. Trump should buy Ms. McDougal’s story.

A.M.I. later paid her $150,000.

“David Pecker’s testimony regarding the decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of McDougal’s life rights.”

Mr. Pecker testified about buying the “life rights” to a story or a tip, saying that it meant that the specific story could not be published anywhere else. At the same time, A.M.I. was not obligated to print any of Ms. McDougal’s story, he said. He also said A.M.I. never had any intention of doing so.

If her story appeared anywhere else, Mr. Pecker said, she would have had to pay back the $150,000.

Mr. Pecker said he decided not to proceed with getting reimbursed by Mr. Trump for the deal with Ms. McDougal, which would have assigned her life rights to Mr. Trump and not The National Enquirer.

He also asserted that he had structured the deal to include health columns written by Ms. McDougal and magazine covers featuring her, in an effort to lend an air of legitimacy to the deal and avoid violating campaign finance law. But the company later admitted doing just that in a 2018 nonprosecution agreement with federal prosecutors.

On Thursday, jurors were also read portions of the defense’s cross-examination of Mr. Pecker, in which he misremembered the exact date of the August 2015 meeting.

A defense lawyer, Emil Bove, reminded Mr. Pecker that in his grand jury testimony, he stated that the meeting had taken place in the first week of that month.

“You changed your testimony here; right?” Mr. Bove asked.

“Yes, Mr. Pecker said, “when I discovered that it was in the middle of August.”

“Pecker’s testimony regarding Trump Tower meeting.”

Prosecutors have argued that a key meeting in the conspiracy to help Mr. Trump’s campaign took place at Trump Tower in Manhattan in August 2015. Mr. Trump had announced his candidacy a few months earlier.

Mr. Pecker said he was asked to attend by Mr. Cohen, who joined him and Mr. Trump at Mr. Trump’s office on the 26th floor. There, Mr. Trump and Mr. Cohen asked him how his magazines could help Mr. Trump’s campaign, Mr. Pecker testified.

“I said what I would do is I would run or publish positive stories about Mr. Trump and I would publish negative stories about his opponents,” Mr. Pecker testified. “I said I would be your eyes and ears.”

“Michael Cohen’s testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting.”

Mr. Cohen also addressed the August 2015 meeting at Trump Tower with Mr. Trump and Mr. Pecker. He corroborated Mr. Pecker’s testimony on the discussion that took place and said the power of The Enquirer was also a topic.

“That if we can place positive stories about Mr. Trump, that would be beneficial,” Mr. Cohen said on the stand. “That if we could place negative stories about some of the other candidates, that would also be beneficial.”

 

[Dante]

and...

Jury instructions​

“We, the jury, request to rehear the judge’s instructions.”

Before the jury started deliberations on Wednesday, the judge, Juan M. Merchan, read a 55-page document of jury instructions, which they were not allowed to take into their discussions. They asked for a significant portion of it to be read back to them, from Pages 6 to 35, which includes the judge’s instructions on “evidentiary inferences.”

That phrase refers to reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the evidence that jurors heard at trial. Justice Merchan illustrated the concept with an analogy:

“Suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining, and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night.”

 

[surada]

Where it stands now:

The jury is back in the room. The court reporter is on the stand preparing for her role reading the testimony. It’s not yet clear who will go first, the judge with his instructions or the reporter reading the four portions of testimony.

The judge asks the jury whether they want to hear the testimony or instructions first. We hear the foreman's voice for the first time since jury selection. He asks to hear the jury instructions. As a reminder, the judge is beginning with page 6, which starts with directing jurors how to consider evidence, and ending with page 35, where the judge explains how his instructions on the law apply to the counts in the case.

This will likely take about 35 minutes, and given that we went over it yesterday morning, we will keep updates spare, unless something obvious that we did not pick up on yesterday jumps out. We published the full set of jury instructions here.
[[[ As a reminder, we published the full set of jury instructions here. Read the Jury Instructions in the Trump Manhattan Criminal Trial ]]]


The jury specifically asked in its note for the judge to repeat his instructions on what are called “evidentiary inferences” — that is, reasonable inferences that can be drawn from what they heard at trial. They asked to hear the following analogy, which he provided yesterday and just repeated:

“Suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night.”



As the judge has re-read his instructions to the jury, Trump has had his eyes closed, and his chin has sometimes slumped to his chest. At other times, his head has been slightly pitched back, like a man tanning.


The judge is now in the middle of page 17 of the jury instructions, explaining to the jurors that they can consider whether any witness would benefit from his or her own testimony. That places us about halfway through this readback of the instructions

Trump helped pick the jurors.

Trump Attorney Says Client 'Very Much' Had A Hand In Selecting Jury That Found Him Guilty

Todd Blanche described Trump's involvement in selecting jurors in what he said was a limited pool in Manhattan.

www.huffpost.com

 

[Dante]

Trump helped pick the jurors.

Trump Attorney Says Client 'Very Much' Had A Hand In Selecting Jury That Found Him Guilty

Todd Blanche described Trump's involvement in selecting jurors in what he said was a limited pool in Manhattan.

www.huffpost.com

By his own actions and words, he also helped to convict himself.


Trump whines 7 different ways about why he was being prosecuted -- unfair, etc.

That was not the same thing as arguing innocence. Sure while he'd add (usually in a weaker tone), "I did nothing wrong" he offered up little to zero evidence (as in the trial itself), to back up that claim. He always claimed to be a victim, not an innocent man.

He also claims he's "fighting for you, for the constitution" which is highly amusing. seeing that he seems to care about nothing but himself.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict. 4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. He said he would treat 4-4-4 as a unanimous verdict.

Thats not even legal in North Korea.

This isnt the first time you jave been caught spreading lies on here. At what point do you get kicked off for doing so ? Having a different opinion is fine. Lying about actual facts that everyone has access to should be a banning matter.