What Is A "Jury of your peers"?

[Skylar]

Wrong. You are on ignore now. You never met the jury either, fool.

And another conservative flees to the safety and comfort of their echo chamber....where they are never questioned about any of the silly things they make up.

I'll be here if you ever muster the courage to come back.

 

[Lisa558]

$35 dollars. And the issue was submitted to an ethics panel, just be sure.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-trump-criminal-hush-money-case-can-stay-ny-ethics-panel-signals-2023-06-12/

"The ethics panel said Merchan's impartiality "cannot reasonably be questioned" based on his daughter's activities, or on the "modest" political contributions he made more than two years ago."

So the judge had to recuse....says who?

A NY ethics panel?! Talk about an oxymoron.

The “judge” was hand-picked to get a conviction.

And so tell me, WHAT “underlying crime” did the jury decide Trump was guilty of? Nobody knows.

 

[Skylar]

In what universe has a individual ever had a long-ago misdemeanor resurrected, and then charged as 34 felonies, due to an underlying unidentified crime, and then the judge throws out different possible crimes it COULD be, and then allows the jury to split 4-4-4?

In the universe where Merchant was quite clear that the jury had to convict unanimously.

Name someone.

This was done for purely political purposes in order to brand Trump a convicted felon. It’s election interference, and a violation of Trump’s Constitutional rights.

This was done because a grand jury determined that the evidence against Trump was sufficient to justify the charges. Trump was found guility of 34 felonies because the just found that the evidence proved Trump was guilty of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. With appeal after appeal, hearing after hearing, preserving Trump's rights through the process.

That you fantasize and imagine that the jury was somehow biased and couldn't act impartially is not a legal standard. Its fantasy and imagination. And will almost certainly not result in any traction on appeal, due to the pristine lack of evidence to support the fantasy.

 

[jc456]

GO tell that to the convicted felon P01135809.
It was his stupid statement.
Try thinking!

Well if you were educated and could listen to english, he asked them if they had them to send them to him.

 

[jc456]

A NY ethics panel?! Talk about an oxymoron.

The “judge” was hand-picked to get a conviction.

And so tell me, WHAT “underlying crime” did the jury decide Trump was guilty of? Nobody knows.

still don't know, not even Mark Garegos

 

[Lisa558]

In the universe where Merchant was quite clear that the jury had to convict unanimously.



This was done because a grand jury determined that the evidence against Trump was sufficient to justify the charges. Trump was found guility of 34 felonies because the just found that the evidence proved Trump was guilty of those crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. With appeal after appeal, hearing after hearing, preserving Trump's rights through the process.

That you fantasize and imagine that the jury was somehow biased and couldn't act impartially is not a legal standard. Its fantasy and imagination. And will almost certainly not result in any traction on appeal, due to the pristine lack of evidence to support the fantasy.

Yeah…..they were unanimous on agreeing he did 1) this, 2) that, or 3) the other.

The DA used some novel criminal theory in bringing the case, and the judge used some novel theory of what unanimous means. All to bring to closure the Stalin approach of “name the man, and I’ll find you a crime.”

 

[Skylar]

A NY ethics panel?! Talk about an oxymoron.

So your reasoning for ignoring the Ethics Panel is that you know better.

Just like you reasoning that the jury wasn't impartial.....is that you know better.

And that Merchant wasn't impartial being.....that you know better.

Why would I ignore the judge, the jury, the ethics panel, and every appeal to hear a myriad of issues that Trump raised before the trial.....and instead believe some rando on the internet that insists xhe knows better.

You're not going to find any appeals court that concludes that a $35 donation 2 years ago establishes a reasonable basis for questioning a judges impartiality.

Because it doesn't.

The “judge” was hand-picked to get a conviction.

And so tell me, WHAT “underlying crime” did the jury decide Trump was guilty of? Nobody knows.

You seemed confused. The underlying crime that Trump was found guilty of was falsifying business records 34 times. New York Penal Law 175-10; A misdemenor. That was enhanced to a felony due to Trump's intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. Specifically § 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

175-10 doesn't require a CONVICTION of a secondary crime. Merely the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime. With Merchant's jury instructions going into elaborate detail of what intent means under NY law.

Just because you didn't know what the crime was that enhanced the business records falsification to a felony doesn't mean that no one did.

I did. Trump's lawyers did. The prosecutors did. The judge did.

Your ignorance doesn't doesn't constitute a legal error on anyone's part. And I checked the judge's jury instructions. You weren't mentioned once.

 

[jc456]

Yeah…..they were unanimous on agreeing he did 1) this, 2) that, or 3) the other.

The DA used some novel criminal theory in bringing the case, and the judge used some novel theory of what unanimous means. All to bring to closure the Stalin approach of “name the man, and I’ll find you a crime.”

Except still no crime

 

[WEATHER53]

Basically Merchant of Death told jury to just go find Trump guilty

 

[BackAgain]

So your reasoning for ignoring the Ethics Panel is that you know better.

Just like you reasoning that the jury wasn't impartial.....is that you know better.

And that Merchant wasn't impartial being.....that you know better.

Why would I ignore the judge, the jury, the ethics panel, and every appeal to hear a myriad of issues that Trump raised before the trial.....and instead believe some rando on the internet that insists xhe knows better.

You're not going to find any appeals court that concludes that a $35 donation 2 years ago establishes a reasonable basis for questioning a judges impartiality.

Because it doesn't.



You seemed confused. The underlying crime that Trump was found guilty of was falsifying business records 34 times. New York Penal Law 175-10; A misdemenor. That was enhanced to a felony due to Trump's intent to commit, aid, or conceal another crime. Specifically § 17-152: Conspiracy to promote or prevent election.

175-10 doesn't require a CONVICTION of a secondary crime. Merely the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime. With Merchant's jury instructions going into elaborate detail of what intent means under NY law.

Just because you didn't know what the crime was that enhanced the business records falsification to a felony doesn't mean that no one did.

I did. Trump's lawyers did. The prosecutors did. The judge did.

Your ignorance doesn't doesn't constitute a legal error on anyone's part. And I checked the judge's jury instructions. You weren't mentioned once.

No. The underlying crime wasn’t the falsification of business records.

You are plainly confused and quite fully wrong.

To elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, NY law said that the defendant had to have done the falsification (which itself wasn’t even proved) with the intent to commit or conceal some “other” crime.

Now, stop obfuscating. It won’t work. We are here in droves to correct you each and every time you try to pull off that bullshit.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah…..they were unanimous on agreeing he did 1) this, 2) that, or 3) the other.

They had to unanimously conclude hat he committed the crime of falsifying business records. Those were the judges instructions. They also had to unanimously conclude that Trump had tried to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

They did both unanimously. Resulting in 34 felony convictions.

Your fantasies that they weren't impartial are merely your imagination. And don't form the basis of any legal challenge to Trump's conviction.

The DA used some novel criminal theory in bringing the case, and the judge used some novel theory of what unanimous means. All to bring to closure the Stalin approach of “name the man, and I’ll find you a crime.”

And the criminal theory was upheld by the judge, the state appeals court, and the federal courts, all rejecting Trump's attempt to dismiss the charges.

Meaning that an appeal based on a rejection of the criminal theory is quite unlikely. Its already been adjudicated in the dismissal hearings and their appeals. State and Federal. And found to be legally and constitutionally valid.

You'll need something new from the trial. And you don't have it.

 

[Skylar]

Except still no crime

Says you.

The jury disagreed. In an assessment of guilt or innocence, their findings matter. And you're irrelevant.

I just checked the judge's jury instructions. You're never mentioned once.

 

[jc456]

No. The underlying crime wasn’t the falsification of business records.

You are plainly confused and quite fully wrong.

To elevate the misdemeanor to a felony, NY law said that the defendant had to have done the falsification (which itself wasn’t even proved) with the intent to commit or conceal some “other” crime.

Now, stop obfuscating. It won’t work. We are here in droves to correct you each and every time you try to pull off that bullshit.

Well, mark geragos doesn’t even know!

 

[evenflow1969]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh, I see what you're saying. You're saying that since blacks are about 18% of New York's population, it would be fair to have an all white jury for a black defendant.

No dumb f he is saying that over a third of New Yorkers are Trump supporters. The jury pool is chosen from these voters. Trumps lawyers got to choose half the jurors and they could not get one to Aquitaine. Trump is guilty as hell and your b ass whines like the loser you and Trump are. Funny how all you dumb ass right Wingers can run your mouth 24. 7 but can never win a court case. Funny how when it takes actual evidence yall fail every time. Hilarious

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't understand the term. Would black people say that when a black person is tried with an all white or mostly white jury that it would be called a jury of your peers? What about if you are a staunch Republican (we'll just call him Donald J Trump) and you have a trial in a deep blue city inside a deep blue state (with a deep blue DA and deep blue prosecutors and a deep blue judge)? Would that be called a jury of your peers? What in the hell is a peer?

American citizens who are not agents of the prosecution/LE involved or of the defense or of the court.

Very simple.

 

[surada]

so when a child is at trial, are there children in the jury? Don't you just love how a rubberband snaps back in your puss?

Children are not often tried as adults.

 

[Toro]

I don't understand the term. Would black people say that when a black person is tried with an all white or mostly white jury that it would be called a jury of your peers? What about if you are a staunch Republican (we'll just call him Donald J Trump) and you have a trial in a deep blue city inside a deep blue state (with a deep blue DA and deep blue prosecutors and a deep blue judge)? Would that be called a jury of your peers? What in the hell is a peer?

Keep on clinging, loser! LOL

 

[surada]

Basically Merchant of Death told jury to just go find Trump guilty

Don't lie to yourself.

 

[Skylar]

Basically Merchant of Death told jury to just go find Trump guilty

Basically, the judge gave the jury instructions that to convict, they had to find Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimously.

The jury made the determination themselves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Basically, the judge gave the jury instructions that to convict, they had to find Trump guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and unanimously.

The jury made the determination themselves.

And the grand juries voted to indict.

In WEATHER53 's very tenderized brain, everyone BUT the orange slob is corrupt.

So that includes the juries.