T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
That's preemptive. The prosecution has never named an actual underlying crime, and the judge even forbade an FEC expert from testifying that Trump didn't violate federal election laws.
Three ways for the Jury to convict Trump
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
No. You aren't a very good lawyer if you think that. The law says intent to commit another crime is all that is required to make it a felony. You might want to read the judge's ruling which lists precedent that the second crime doesn't even have to have been committed.
The People’s primary contention with Defendant’s argument is that the statute does not
require that the “cther crime” wetnally be committed. Rather, all that is required is that defendant
have the intent. That is, he acted with a conscious aim and abjective to commit another crime. The
People rely on Peaple 1. Thorpson, 124 AD3d 448 1st Dept 2015] and Peaple v. McCumiskey, 12 AD3d
1145 [4th Dept 2004). In Thompsor, the defendant was convicted of Falsifying Business Records in
the First Degree for making a false entry on a form. The court upheld the conviction finding that
the prosecution did not have t¢ establish that defendant committed or was convicted of the crime
he intended to conceal.
It is the judge that rules what the jury can hear according to the law and the judge that rules on the jury instructions. The judge ruled on what crimes the prosecution could claim could occur. The jury now gets to decide if there was intent to hide an intent to commit those crimes.
OMFG. Read the f-ing ruling before you make yourself look so stupid. After you read the ruling then go read the prosecution opening statement.
The judge didn't prevent the former FEC commissioner from testifying. Trump's lawyers didn't call him after the judge limited his testimony to what was allowed in pretrial motions and rulings.
Judge in Trump’s hush money trial did not bar campaign finance expert from testifying for defense
As the trial continued Tuesday, social media users misrepresented Merchan’s ruling, repeating a statement Trump made that Smith, a law professor and former Republican member of the Federal Election Commission, was not being allowed to take the stand.
apnews.com
Do you have any other lies you want to push forward at this point.
So far you have lied about the defense not being told what crimes made it a felony and now about who stopped the defense witness from taking the stand.
Maybe Comrade Merchan will just say "Trump is an enemy of the party - convict him for that."
It would the ONLY honest instruction the Tweedle Corrupt and Tweedle Corrupter could give to the lynch mob.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
apparently you AND the judge aren't very good lawyers........I'll stick with Alan Dershowitz' assessment thanks.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
the jury decides if the prosecutor has proved BOTH crimes beyond a reasonable doubt......in this case, according to Alan Dershowitz the prosecutor has failed to produce any evidence of a second crime and if the judge fails to issue a directed verdict it will be an appealable error.....
What a dishonest dodge.
So why did Merchan and Bragg not present it in open court? Why only to a pet "grand jury" that is nothing other than a rubber stamp? Were the two corrupt cunts worried about cross examination by defense? I mean, look what having a defense did to the heart of their case, Micheal Cohen?
Because the Lynching failed to establish there was any sort of crime. The Corruption Twins didn't even present this trash to the jury - for fear of defense taking their idiocy apart.
I thought you said the jury decides. Now you think someone not in the courtroom decides?
Hmm.. who should we rely on? Dershowitz or the NY appeals court?
The People rely on Peaple 1. Thorpson, 124 AD3d 448 1st Dept 2015] and Peaple v. McCumiskey, 12 AD3d
1145 [4th Dept 2004). In Thompsor, the defendant was convicted of Falsifying Business Records in
the First Degree for making a false entry on a form. The court upheld the conviction finding that
the prosecution did not have t¢ establish that defendant committed or was convicted of the crime
he intended to conceal. McCaummskey also held that evidence of infent to commit a crime is sufficient
to satisfy the requirements of PL §175.10 even if defendant was not convicted of the “other crime.”
It seems Dershowitz isn't aware of the precedents from the appeals court that would show this isn't an appealable an error since it follows previous rulings by the appeals court.
You are really this stupid, aren't you. This is the ruling that says they CAN present it in open court because they first presented it to the grand jury. If they didn't present it to the grand jury then they can't present it in open court which is why the judge ruled only 3 of the 4 crimes could be presented to the jury.
ROFLMAO.. So if you simply deny reality, you think it doesn't exist? If you close your eyes, do you think no one can see you?
It makes as much sense as your claim they didn't present this to the jury.
Can, yet didn't. Merchan needed to make his case. You DO grasp that the lynch mob has rested, that the Soros boi's Bragg and Merchan won't be offering any more evidence, right?
LOL. The transcripts and evidence is available online that shows you are not living in reality. You seem to think if you deny what the jury heard then you can make that the reality for the jury and for the rest of us that are able to read.
The jury is the trier of facts. The judge is the trier of law. If you think you have a legal technicality, then you need to bring it up with the judge.
On the bright side, the jury trier of facts decision is almost impossible to appeal. You can appeal the trier of law decisions much easier.
No, the jury only decides the facts of the crime trump is being charged with.
Then you should have no trouble showing this "another crime" that Merchan alleges?
Yet, just like Bragg, you've utterly failed to do so.
As a matter of law - there is no case here. But this isn't law, it's a lynching - so the question is what acts the lynch mob will engage in? All it takes is a single juror with integrity and the jury is hung. But I think Merchan, who is corrupt to the bone, is getting nervous due to his financial entanglements profiting from this persecution. My guess is he declares a mistrial to provide some cover from an honest AG coming in January who WILL dig into the lawfare corruption of the Biden Regime and Soros puppet DA's/judges.
Merchan doesn't allege any crime. He is letting the prosecution show that 3 possible crimes occurred that turned the falsification of the documents into a felony. As a matter of law, there is a case here and if you bothered to read the court rulings you would realize there is a case. Trump certainly thinks there is a case because he chickened out on testifying and lied about why he wasn't testifying. Merchan has already ruled on the motion for a mistrial. He didn't declare one.
Aren't you cute with your antisemitism tropes?
Maybe someday you will realize you have no brain but I doubt it since you are not smart enough to realize how dumb you are.
ROFL
Merchan is the lead prosecutor.
No, Neither Bragg nor Merchan ever did so - and they have rested their case. They aren't concerned, since this isn't a court of law - just a lynching.
As a matter of law - there is no case. An alleged bookkeeping error that is 3 years past the statute of limitations - which Merchan's key perjurer admitted under oath to ordering himself without direction from the last legitimate president. An act that is at best a misdemeanor that the scumbag Bragg "stacked" and charged repeatedly. Then the two Soros goons, Merchan and Bragg try and claim that a bookkeeping error is a felony.
No, there is no case as a matter of law, but this isn't a court of law - just a lynching.
LOL
Are you claiming that Merchan is JEWISH? Or maybe Bragg? I suppose it's no less rational or factual than the rest of the shit you write..
There are a lot of Antisemites on this board - most of them Marxists like you.
What will you do if there is a hung jury or if Merchan declares a mistrial? Will the realization the Quid Pro will lose start to sink in? That even with the famous democrat election fraud machine, you can't overcome the American people?