Verdict

[moke123]

Blimey moke, you must live in the wilderness! We don't really have dangerous animals in the UK. It is all quite tame over here.

He's a new one too. He's not the one who lives back there. I'd peg him at around 300 lbs.

Good thing it wasn't garbage day

They know the pick up schedules better than I do.

but if I use your argument, it is just luck of the draw.

I meant it more in the context of where you commit your crime, venue wise.

nowadays they try to have a racial mix on juries,

Commissioner of jurors sends out jury summonses randomly to eligible people from the community. They don't look at race, political leanings, etc. Totally random. It's up to the D.A. and defense counsel to select people they're comfortable with. Judges don't pick them. I admit I was surprised team trump only exercised 1 challenge.

And which is why you cannot get a fair trial when the entire jury hate you because of political reasons.

Do you think juries hate repeat child molesters or rapists? Or even any criminal in general? They pledge to be fair and impartial and decide the case on the evidence alone. That's the backbone of our legal system. Juries take that oath pretty seriously.
We don't know anything about the juries political makeup. Looking at the list and what's known about them, it doesn't strike me as being obviously partisan. In fact a few may be right leaning seems to me and not long term NYers. Here's the list https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/18/jurors-trump-hush-money-trial-jury Juror #5 even sounds a little like Pat.

About the records, you said they cannot be used unless you get them in sufficient time. But they were.

Records that the Prosecution is obligated to exchange and is under their control. I believe the records were the federal prosecution of Cohen. The law can be complicated and I'm speaking in general terms. Surprises do happen. You just need to be prepared. The records were available to trump from day 1. There was nothing stopping him from getting them himself. It was a courtesy to give them time to review them. I think Braggs office needed the time to review them too. I think I mentioned that I had to testify the other day due to a late disclosure by the DA 2 days before trial. The had to disclose it as they had just received it that day and it was exculpatory for our client. They were no longer going to call the witness and were going to go forward on the basis of the 911 call and excited utterance. When I showed up for trial and they were informed I had already interviewed the witness and would be testifying, they dismissed the case. Attorneys generally list me as a witness in most cases just so the other side can't object when I'm needed.

 

[Jon]

Do you think juries hate repeat child molesters or rapists? Or even any criminal in general? They pledge to be fair and impartial and decide the case on the evidence alone. That's the backbone of our legal system.

Forgive me if I say so, but your analogy does not hold for a number of reasons. What you are talking about here is the crime being commited. It is not a crime to be a Republican. And before the trial, Trump had never been convicted of any crime.

Furthermore, part of the backbone of the legal system is that the court specifically states that the prosecution cannot bring up previous convictions, such as being a repeat molester or rapist. Why? Because it leads to a prejudicial jury, who no longer just looks at the evidence alone. And that is precisely the point why you cannot get a fair trial in this case, since the jury brings bias due to their baked in hatred of Trump. They are not looking at just the evidence.

Juries take that oath pretty seriously.

Do you mean like in the OJ Simpson case?

The records were available to trump from day 1.

Why did Bragg take 7 years to get them? The prosecutor is obliged to provide them in a timely manner. How does the defence know what records they should seek? I thought it was up to the prosecutor to select their evidence to be used. How does the defence know what records they need when the prosecutor refuses to tell them what the crime was?

 

[Jon]

One of the paths to felony enhancement was novel but that doesn't mean it's invalid. No one was ever charged with murder for selling an addict bad heroin until they were.

You are comparing a charge that is common with one that is unique. And again, that is precisely the point: novel legal theories to indict a political opponent who is leading in the polls. They have to make something up to "Get Trump".

If you want to argue that there is always a first time a new legal theory is charged, then this plays into the justification to convict your political opponent where there is no precedent.

The above were my thoughts, however limited due to my finite knowledge and reasoning ability.

But forget what I think. Let us see what Claude 3 thinks of the argument, something much more intelligent than I will ever be! OMG, these AI things will take over the world!

Edit: In the future, I can see arguments on this forum being essentially a battle between AI's, as we all stop thinking ourselves and let our digital overlords do our dirty work!

 

[moke123]

Forgive me if I say so, but your analogy does not hold for a number of reasons. What you are talking about here is the crime being commited. It is not a crime to be a Republican. And before the trial, Trump had never been convicted of any crime.

Context. You repeatedly say that the jurors hate trump. Your argument is based on that yet there is no indication it's true other than wishful thinking.

Furthermore, part of the backbone of the legal system is that the court specifically states that the prosecution cannot bring up previous convictions, such as being a repeat molester or rapist.

Depends on the facts. Prior bad acts are litigated in almost every case where the defendant has a record. In some instances it is a requirement such as OUI 3rd. To sustain that charge they must prove that the defendant was convicted at least twice before on the same charge and that it is the same person. There are often time limits on how far the reach back can go. It all revolves around the specific facts of the specific case.

I thought it was up to the prosecutor to select their evidence to be used.

It is. And they turn that over as required. They also turn over whatever exculpatory evidence they may have.

Why did Bragg take 7 years to get them? The prosecutor is obliged to provide them in a timely manner.

They are 3rd party records not under the possession or control of the DA. Team trump asked for them in January and they were then provided. Trump wanted them to impeach Cohen. I'm pretty sure they knew Cohen would be a witness from day 1. Why didn't they ask for them sooner? Just a guess but trump has a habit of trying to stall the inevitable and it was probably further efforts to try and stall the trial.

How does the defence know what records they need when the prosecutor refuses to tell them what the crime was?

I'm sure there are boxes and boxes of pleadings between the DA and Defense that we have not seen, nor heard about, and probably never will. There is a standard pleading called a "Bill Of Particulars" -

a bill of particulars is a detailed, formal, written statement of charges or claims by a plaintiff or the prosecutor given upon the defendant's formal request to the court for more detailed information.

I tend to recall there was a motion hearing where a B Of P was discussed and it would have been malpractice if team trump didn't make that request.

Reminds me of a civil case I had back when discovery rules were different. Plaintiff was claiming a back injury where he couldn't work or do things like walk a long distance or carry heavy objects like he could do pre-accident. When the plaintiff completed their case we rolled the TV into the courtroom and they nearly fainted. They were unaware we conducted surveillance on him and had followed him from Brooklyn to the Delaware Water Gap where he went for a long hike carrying a big cooler full of beer and some other items. Oops!

 

[Steve R.]

Don't forget that H. Clinton claimed that the phony Steele Dossier, meant to sway the 2016 presidential election against Trump, was a identified as a legal expense. Hillary only gets a minor civil fine for that, yet Trump gets charged with 34 felony counts! That is outrageous and strongly implies that the "fix" was in against Trump. That is not equal justice. Democrats have clearly been targeting Trump since 2016 with misleading accusations.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Don't forget that H. Clinton claimed that the phony Steele Dossier, meant to sway the 2016 presidential election against Trump, was a identified as a legal expense. Hillary only gets a minor civil fine for that, yet Trump gets charged with 34 felony counts! That is outrageous and strongly implies that the "fix" was in against Trump. That is not equal justice. Democrats have clearly been targeting Trump since 2016 with misleading accusations.

We have to look at why the Republicans are not engaging in lawfare and correct it. Obama and Clinton need to be hauled in front of a kangaroo court and prosecuted for crimes not yet defined.

lawfare, lawfare, lawfare!

 

[NauticalGent]

We have to look at why the Republicans are not engaging in lawfare and correct it.

Now THAT is a question that isn't getting asked. The GOP gets to blame it on the DEMS and keep their skirts nice and clean...

 

[Jon]

Context. You repeatedly say that the jurors hate trump. Your argument is based on that yet there is no indication it's true other than wishful thinking.

Was your argument about a concern for an all white jury when a black man was on trial also wishful thinking? Where is your evidence there? I think a better and more accurate description is probabilistic thinking. In fact that is how the legal system works when getting a conviction, as you well know. It is not a question of being 100% certain, it is a question of probability. In this case, Manhatten is one of the strongest Democrat leaning areas in the country, with about 90% of them polling for the Dems. It is like being surrounded by Klan members and the black mans defence team has to pick the most moderate of them. The number of jurors in this case who said they cannot be unbiased was considerable.

Depends on the facts. Prior bad acts are litigated in almost every case where the defendant has a record. In some instances it is a requirement such as OUI 3rd. To sustain that charge they must prove that the defendant was convicted at least twice before on the same charge and that it is the same person. There are often time limits on how far the reach back can go. It all revolves around the specific facts of the specific case.

It is. And they turn that over as required. They also turn over whatever exculpatory evidence they may have.

I think you are conflating sentencing/litigation with what is revealed to the jury. They are two different things. Our debate was concerning jury bias depending on what they know prior to trial.

They are 3rd party records not under the possession or control of the DA. Team trump asked for them in January and they were then provided. Trump wanted them to impeach Cohen. I'm pretty sure they knew Cohen would be a witness from day 1. Why didn't they ask for them sooner? Just a guess but trump has a habit of trying to stall the inevitable and it was probably further efforts to try and stall the trial.

It is the obligation of the prosecution to provide those records in a timely manner. As you stated yourself, they cannot be used otherwise. If the Trump team could have got them years ago, then so could Bragg. It is prosecutorial misconduct if you don't give adequate time. You are wrongly putting the burden on the defence for obtaining records.

I'm sure there are boxes and boxes of pleadings between the DA and Defense that we have not seen, nor heard about, and probably never will. There is a standard pleading called a "Bill Of Particulars" -

I tend to recall there was a motion hearing where a B Of P was discussed and it would have been malpractice if team trump didn't make that request.

The "Stop Trump" judge Merchan denied in part Trump's motion for a Bill of Particulars. It seems New York law has its own perverse set of rules.

Reminds me of a civil case I had back when discovery rules were different. Plaintiff was claiming a back injury where he couldn't work or do things like walk a long distance or carry heavy objects like he could do pre-accident. When the plaintiff completed their case we rolled the TV into the courtroom and they nearly fainted. They were unaware we conducted surveillance on him and had followed him from Brooklyn to the Delaware Water Gap where he went for a long hike carrying a big cooler full of beer and some other items. Oops!

I've never been in court. The whole though of it terrifies me!

All the above is said in good faith. I have had my head inside a bbq for the last hour, where I have been replacing the burners. I think I've inhaled some gas so any errors above are to be blamed on that.

 

[Jon]

Don't forget that H. Clinton claimed that the phony Steele Dossier, meant to sway the 2016 presidential election against Trump, was a identified as a legal expense. Hillary only gets a minor civil fine for that, yet Trump gets charged with 34 felony counts! That is outrageous and strongly implies that the "fix" was in against Trump. That is not equal justice. Democrats have clearly been targeting Trump since 2016 with misleading accusations.

Exactly, and when I asked Microsoft's AI Copilot why it went blank and said it can't provide an answer. Even the AI is rigged!

"No one is above the law" has zero meaning when the one's saying it operate as though they are.

And Biden recently commented on the rule of law and Trump's accusations that things were rigged.

Biden:

"Our justice system has endured for nearly 250 years, and it literally is the cornerstone of America. Our justice system, that justice should be respected. And we should never allow anyone to tear it down. It's as simple as that,"

And yet Biden has no qualms about admonishing the Supreme Court justices rulings regarding Roe v. Wade. So what is it Joe, respect the corrupt lower courts and disrespect the highest court in the land? Double standards again.

 

[moke123]

It is the obligation of the prosecution to provide those records in a timely manner. As you stated yourself, they cannot be used otherwise. If the Trump team could have got them years ago, then so could Bragg. It is prosecutorial misconduct if you don't give adequate time. You are wrongly putting the burden on the defence for obtaining records.

You really don't understand this. Bear in mind I'm speaking in general terms because I'm not privy to all the motion practices that occurred. The records sought were the federal prosecution of Cohen. Those records were compiled by, and are under the care, custody and control of the Feds. They are not part of braggs case against trump. They were not in the care, custody, or control of bragg. Bragg was not using them in the prosecution of trump. Bragg conducted his own investigation. Bragg presumably had no knowledge of any exculpatory information that may or may not be contained in those records as it relates to trump and therefore he had no affirmative duty to seek them out.

What makes you think the defense has no burden? I'd be out of a job. When I get a new murder case the first thing I do is dig up everything I can about everyone involved. You obtain your own copies of every document that the prosecution exchanges to ensure you got it all. You seek out every other document you can think of. You run everyone's record. You speak to every witness and find new ones. Visit every crime scene. Examine every piece of physical evidence. Dig up whatever Brady material you can find on involved law enforcement. When the trial rolls around you run background on every potential juror to aid in picking the jury. One could argue the defense bears a greater burden than the prosecution does.

I've never been in court. The whole though of it terrifies me!

Tell me about it. You have any idea what it's like to testify knowing one slip up could cost someone a lifetime.

 

[Steve R.]

@moke123: While you may want to fervently argue the minutiae of what the evidence demonstrates, you apparently dismiss that this was, from the very beginning, a bogus case. Hillary Clinton gets a minor slap on the wrist for attempting to manipulate the 2016 election by falsifying a bookkeeping entry, yet Trump gets hit for 34 felonies for essentially the same crime (assuming a crime was committed). Based on the concept of equal justice, at the most, Trump should only have been hit with a minor slap on the wrist.

PS: To my knowledge, you never answered the question of how the Trump team should have entered the payment in the accounting books. All I keep hearing from the anti-Trump crowd is that entry was "falsified", but how it should have been recorded has never been answered. If it can't be entered in another manner, then there was no falsification and the whole trial was bogus.

 

[Jon]

You really don't understand this. Bear in mind I'm speaking in general terms because I'm not privy to all the motion practices that occurred. The records sought were the federal prosecution of Cohen. Those records were compiled by, and are under the care, custody and control of the Feds. They are not part of braggs case against trump. They were not in the care, custody, or control of bragg. Bragg was not using them in the prosecution of trump. Bragg conducted his own investigation. Bragg presumably had no knowledge of any exculpatory information that may or may not be contained in those records as it relates to trump and therefore he had no affirmative duty to seek them out.

What you are saying is at odds with what happened in the trial. Bragg requested these records, and therefore has an obligation to provide them to the defense in a timely manner. It is a basic discovery obligation. I do understand this after all!

What makes you think the defense has no burden? ... One could argue the defense bears a greater burden than the prosecution does.

Except the defense doesn't have that burden. Bragg had a legal obligation to provide all possessed evidence in a timely manner. Do you still dispute this, despite the law being quite clear on this?

 

[moke123]

Bragg requested these records, and therefore has an obligation to provide them to the defense in a timely manner.

And how does one exchange something they don't have? Timely includes upon receipt. Just like the case I had last Friday. The delay falls on SDNY. That's not braggs office. The remedies depend on motion practices and a lot of legal doctrines . In skimming through some articles it appears that much of those documents had already been exchanged and most of it was duplicative and irrelevant. Trump did move for sanctions which were denied. At least part of that decision indicates that the some of the request was a "fishing expedition" (something we try all the time but are usually denied) and the requests were not timely on trumps part. There a a ton of rules that apply in Doc production. That's why I said you can only speak in general terms because we don't know the specific details of the requests and relevance of the records. These are not simple issues or a one size fits all issue.

edit: just noticed you posted an article earlier which included:

At the March 25 hearing, Merchan said the DA’s office had no duty to collect evidence from the federal investigation, nor was the U.S. attorney’s office required to volunteer the documents. What transpired was a “far cry” from Manhattan prosecutors “injecting themselves in the process and vehemently and aggressively trying to obstruct your ability to get documentation,” the judge said.

“It’s just not what happened,” Merchan said.

The DA’s office denied wrongdoing and blamed Trump’s lawyers for waiting until Jan. 18 to subpoena the records from the U.S. attorney’s office — a mere nine weeks before the trial was originally supposed to start. Merchan told defense lawyers they should have acted sooner if they believed they didn’t have all the records they wanted.

We'll probably learn a lot more during the appellate review.

Except the defense doesn't have that burden.

My reference to the defense's burden is in the context of the defense has the burden of providing a competent defense. Quite frankly, I think they did a shitty job albeit they didn't have much to work with.

PS: To my knowledge, you never answered the question of how the Trump team should have entered the payment in the accounting books. All I keep hearing from the anti-Trump crowd is that entry was "falsified", but how it should have been recorded has never been answered. If it can't be entered in another manner, then there was no falsification and the whole trial was bogus.

Thought I answered that in post #80. I suppose they could have entered "Hush Money Reimbursement" but the whole point of the conspiracy was to hide that fact. This part of the case is pretty simple and straight forward. Cohen submitted fake invoices for legal services never provided. Fake being the keyword. Trump then paid them as if they were a legit expense and presumably use then as a tax deduction. Sorta like if you hired a hitman to strangle your wife and he gave you a receipt for "Respiratory Therapy" Could you legally deduct that as a medical expense?

Based on the concept of equal justice, at the most, Trump should only have been hit with a minor slap on the wrist.

Maybe look up the difference between civil and criminal law.

 

[Steve R.]

Maybe look up the difference between civil and criminal law.

Sorry, but Bragg twisted what was essentially a civil bookkeeping "error" into a criminal case whereas Hillary's case was left as a minor civil case. Hillary received a sweetheart deal whereas this was an blatant political hit job against Trump.

 

[Jon]

Sorry, but Bragg twisted what was essentially a civil bookkeeping "error" into a criminal case whereas Hillary's case was left as a minor civil case. Hillary received a sweetheart deal whereas this was an blatant political hit job against Trump.

I was going to say the same thing. Same case, different prosecution. There is one difference though, Trumps statute of limitations had expired and Hillarys hadn't. Or in other words, Trump shouldn't have been prosecuted, whilst Hillary should have been. But instead, Trump gets a charge elivated to a felony. I would like to hear from the Democrats why they think this is not a double standard.

 

[Jon]

And how does one exchange something they don't have? Timely includes upon receipt. Just like the case I had last Friday. The delay falls on SDNY. That's not braggs office. The remedies depend on motion practices and a lot of legal doctrines . In skimming through some articles it appears that much of those documents had already been exchanged and most of it was duplicative and irrelevant. Trump did move for sanctions which were denied. At least part of that decision indicates that the some of the request was a "fishing expedition" (something we try all the time but are usually denied) and the requests were not timely on trumps part. There a a ton of rules that apply in Doc production. That's why I said you can only speak in general terms because we don't know the specific details of the requests and relevance of the records. These are not simple issues or a one size fits all issue.

Again, by saying the requests are not timely on Trumps part, you are still putting the burden back on the defense to get these documents. Yet earlier you said this:

The defense gets everything well in advance and if they don't it's excluded.

Source: https://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/threads/verdict.331262/page-2#post-1922010

So in effect, you are saying it should be excluded (which it was not) and that the prosecution does not have a burden (which it does). You do realise that this is the opposite of what the law requires?

And how does one exchange something they don't have?

Until they do, to use your turn of phrase. And when they do, they have a legal burden to provide these to the defense in a timely manner, do you not agree?

We'll probably learn a lot more during the appellate review.

I am interested to see what the appellate Klan members will do. Can they rise above their Democrat bias when the Donald is the target? I know the FBI couldn't during the Russia investigation. They kept going for years, despite there being no evidence. And neither could 51 former intelligence officials who falsly labeled Hunter Biden's laptop as Russia disinformation, despite knowing that it wasn't.

My reference to the defense's burden is in the context of the defense has the burden of providing a competent defense. Quite frankly, I think they did a shitty job albeit they didn't have much to work with.

Or in other words, you do accept that I both understand and was correct in saying the burden was on the prosecution in providing those documents to the defense in a timely manner.

A defense would be a little easier if you knew what crime you were being charged for and that documents were delivered in plenty of time. None of these things happened. Can you name what crime he was charged with?

 

[Thales750]

His crime was being a threat to both parties and the status quo. I do not know enough about the case (by design) to argue for or against the ruling. What I do know is that this is inconsistent with other past Presidents - doesn't mean he should be let off the hook is there is evidence of wrong doing.

But the reason this went down the way it went down is because he is a threat - no more, no less. He is popular and the American public wants him. Were he allowed to run, he would win. To steal the election this time would be too obvious and difficult to cover-up.

This is what happens when you don't toe the line and sing the company song. He is lucky he hasn't met an unfortunate accident - yet.

Part of the American public, and a broken Electoral System.

Republican gerrymandering and winner take all politics in the Electoral College is the reason Trump would be elected. I realize his supporters don't care how he gets there, as long as whatever it takes to increase his power, and to hold any people, except full-on MAGA worshipers, in contempt.

MAGA is some dangerous business. I think it's possible that we are going to see just how dangerous it is.

 

[moke123]

Or in other words, you do accept that I both understand and was correct in saying the burden was on the prosecution in providing those documents to the defense in a timely manner.

Your almost there. Again I'll state that I'm talking in generalities as neither you nor I know the intricacies involved. These issues are extremely fact based on a case by case basis. Just because a defendant wants something it does not create an obligation for the prosecution to provide it. Generally anything the prosecution is going to use at trial must be exchanged. Same goes for the defense.

Again, it was litigated and according to the article you provided the judge found the prosecution did not have an obligation to pursue those records on behalf of the defense, nor was SDNY required to voluntarily provide them. We don't even know the scope of the request and there are exceptions such as attorney work product that may apply. I can't tell you the reason without more information.

 

[moke123]

And when you map it by population it looks a little different

 

[moke123]

What a surprise. More indictments of Trump Aides in Wisconsin today. Who saw that coming?

Felony Charges Filed Against Attorneys, Aide Who Worked For Trump During 2020 Campaign In Wisconsin

Trump lost Wisconsin to Biden, a Democrat, by fewer than 21,000 votes. Trump carried Wisconsin by a similar margin in 2016.

www.huffpost.com

Hmm, busy day for lawyers

Right-Wing Media Executive Charged In Massive Money-Laundering Scheme

A federal indictment accuses the media company's CFO of laundering millions in illicit funds using cryptocurrency and prepaid debit cards.

www.huffpost.com