So where is your evidence that in a jury trial the conviction doesn't occur until the sentencing? You presented the process for what happens when someone pleads guilty. We both agree that Trump didn't plead guilty. He was found guilty by the jury. Since he was found guilty by the jury, the conviction occurs when the judge accepts it and enters the jury verdict into the public record.Wrong. But you appear to be either incredibly gullible, inherently dishonest, or severely stupid.
Once the dishonest partisan hack jurist finally convicts and sentences Trump, he will be able to appeal this clown court conviction and win.
The decision of the jury doesn t take effect until the judge enters a judgment on the decision - that is, an order that it be filed in public records.
You seem to want to argue that the court violated the law. Appeals are in process. Until a higher court overturns a conviction, the conviction stands. Finals result is Trump is currently a felon who was convicted of 34 felonies.You might want to read the actual transcript for the answer to that dumb question.
Merchan said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.
Three choices of which none were proven? Third world.
Judge Merchan told the jury that in order to find the defendant guilty, the prosecutors are required to prove that on or about Feb. 14, 2017, former President Trump personally made or caused a false entry in business enterprise, specifically an invoice from his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen.
Seriously? That's laughable on its face.
"To find him guilty, jurors must determine that Mr Trump not only had a hand in falsifying records but did so in order to commit or conceal another crime – specifically, that he violated state law against conspiracy to influence an election by “unlawful means.”
Those “unlawful means” include violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, the falsification of other business records, and violations of state and federal tax laws."
Yet, the FEC stated they could find zero evidence there was any election interference. Meanwhile, this jurist, this prosecutor and this jury, by manufacturing a felony out of a misdemeanor that had already exhausted the statute of limitations, attempted to do just that.
I don't know why I am bothering arguing with an uneducated leftist liar who brainlessly bloviates MSNBC talking points.