For you idiots, the alleged crimes!

Why is that. ^^^

Why does the Prosecutor not need to say 'he was there to murder' or 'there to rob', 'there to rape or kidnap', to get the more serious felony charge?

The answer to that is because then the Defense would ALWAYS be able to create doubt. If the Prosecutor says 'he was there to rob' the defense would say 'they do not know that... he may have been their to murder... and he was not charged with that so he is not guilty'.

And it would give the criminal the ultimate defense. So the law INSTEAD says a jury can infer, if they believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was there to do one of those serious crimes and thus elevate the Trespass to a felony.

You magats do not have to like that is how the law works (now because Trump is caught with it) but it is how it has ALWAYS worked.
 
QP! said:
Why is that. ^^^

Why does the Prosecutor not need to say 'he was there to murder' or 'there to rob', 'there to rape or kidnap', to get the more serious felony charge?

The answer to that is because then the Defense would ALWAYS be able to create doubt. If the Prosecutor says 'he was there to rob' the defense would say 'they do not know that... he may have been their to murder... and he was not charged with that so he is not guilty'.

And it would give the criminal the ultimate defense. So the law INSTEAD says a jury can infer, if they believe it beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was there to do one of those serious crimes and thus elevate the Trespass to a felony.

You magats do not have to like that is how the law works (now because Trump is caught with it) but it is how it has ALWAYS worked.
Click to expand...
The Prosecutor needs to say just what they did in this case... During closing explain how the evidence shows intent to commit or conceal other crimes. The other crime does not have to be proven because it is simply intent, it can be any other crime, and the other crimes do not even need to be named (but doing so would help)

The attempt to conceal or commit the other crime becomes an element of the charged crime.
 
QP! said:
You are wrong and stupid as always when it comes to commenting on the law.

If you are caught at a private home on private property the charge will be a misdemeanor trespass. Nothing more.

If you are caught however with tools to break and enter, and a gun and handcuffs that misdemeanor can and will be elevated to a felony based on a number of other crimes the Prosecutions DOES NOT need to prove.

Are you there simple to Break and Enter? To commit theft? To kidnap? To rape? To murder? All are potential and the prosecution DOES not have to stipulate which one you were there to do. The felony Trespass can be found by a jury if they find it reasonable that you were there to do any one (or maybe all), without having to focus on one.
Click to expand...
look we all agree you know absolutely nothing about the law.....in each of those scenarios the prosecutor will indict the accused with the crime and the prosecutor must prove all the elements to the jury,,,,,,,now shut the fuck up unless we're talking about gas stations......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
look we all agree you know absolutely nothing about the law.....in each of those scenarios the prosecutor will indict the accused with the crime and the prosecutor must prove all the elements to the jury,,,,,,,now shut the fuck up unless we're talking about gas stations......
Click to expand...
No the prosecutor WILL NOT. Stop being so stupid.

Just like with Trumps case here, in that instance the Prosecutor would ONLY charge the Felony Trespass and NOT the underlying crime that allowed him to bump it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Again, for the intelligence impaired, those underlying crimes, of the trespasser, could be ANY or ALL of 'intent to Rob', 'intent to rape', 'intent to murder', 'other' and it DOES NOT need to be stipulated by the Prosecutor. And each jury member could believe it was a DIFFERENT under lying crime which will NEVER be proved or argued.


You simply DO NOT know anything about law. You continue your streak of being wrong 100% of the time.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
More justification of being able to charge and convict someone of a thought crime.
Click to expand...
The crime is an action. The action in this case is falsifying business records. In another case it might be shooting someone.

In any crime, there must be intent. Without intent, it is not a crime, it is an accident. Intent can make the crime worse. So falsifying business records with the intent of committing or covering up another crime is a worse crime. Shooting someone with the intent of murdering them is a worse crime. Shooting them with no intent, such as a hunting accident, is not a crime. And shooting someone without the intent of murdering them is not as severe a crime as shooting them with the intent of murdering them. Obviously, the murder does not need to happen for attempted murder (the intent of murdering) to have happened.

This is all very standard stuff.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
actually that isn't true........if the prosecutor does NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed one of the crimes there can be no conviction of that crime......
Click to expand...
The trial is over the falsification of business records, which is the only crime that the prosecution is trying to get a conviction on.

The other crime does not have to be committed or covered up... There just has to be an intent to commit or cover it up. Much like attempted murder involves an intent to murder, but no actual murder.

Doesn't PMS claim to be a lawyer, who went to some third rate law school? I would think even he knows this.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
No, it states the opposite.

Only when used to conceal or further ANOTHER CRIME (which you Stalinists can't manage to come up with) would it be charged as a felony.
Click to expand...
That is not what the law says. It says that there needs to be an "intent", not that intent needs to be successful.
 
Walt said:
The crime is an action. The action in this case is falsifying business records. In another case it might be shooting someone.

In any crime, there must be intent. Without intent, it is not a crime, it is an accident. Intent can make the crime worse. So falsifying business records with the intent of committing or covering up another crime is a worse crime. Shooting someone with the intent of murdering them is a worse crime. Shooting them with no intent, such as a hunting accident, is not a crime. And shooting someone without the intent of murdering them is not as severe a crime as shooting them with the intent of murdering them. Obviously, the murder does not need to happen for attempted murder (the intent of murdering) to have happened.

This is all very standard stuff.
Click to expand...
You can be charged with a crime for accidental occurrences. Shooting someone accidently while mishandling a firearm is a perfect example. You acted irresponsibly without intent and got charged for that irresponsibility. Drunk driving and killing someone is the same sort of thing. You had no intention of causing an accident but your negligence and irresponsibility caused one and now you have to pay the consequences.

That however, isn't the case with Trump's charges. The way the NY law works is you have to have committed an underlying crime to be charged with a felony for cooking the books. That is, you had to do something like embezzle money--like Cohen did from Trump--or pay out money for a murder-for-hire, and then cover that up in the bookkeeping.

Bragg never--NEVER--stated what the underlying crime was that Trump committed--and would normally have been convicted of--that turned these bookkeeping entries into felonies as NY state law requires.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You can be charged with a crime for accidental occurrences. Shooting someone accidently while mishandling a firearm is a perfect example. You acted irresponsibly without intent and got charged for that irresponsibility. Drunk driving and killing someone is the same sort of thing. You had no intention of causing an accident but your negligence and irresponsibility caused one and now you have to pay the consequences.

That however, isn't the case with Trump's charges. The way the NY law works is you have to have committed an underlying crime to be charged with a felony for cooking the books. That is, you had to do something like embezzle money--like Cohen did from Trump--or pay out money for a murder-for-hire, and then cover that up in the bookkeeping.

Bragg never--NEVER--stated what the underlying crime was that Trump committed--and would normally have been convicted of--that turned these bookkeeping entries into felonies as NY state law requires.
Click to expand...
No, you do not have to have committed the underlying crime, you have to have attempted to commit or attempted to conceal the underlying crime.
 
fb_img_1716856099002-jpg.1574609
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top