Trump Election Interference / Falsification of Business Records Criminal Trial (Trump guilty on all 34 Counts) (3 Viewers)

[SteveSBrickNJ]

What will happen now that former President Donald Trump was found guilty (in 34 counts) by the jury?
*
Speculation on the judge relating to sentencing?
*
Appeals?
*
Political Damage?
*

Trump found guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records. Here's a breakdown.

A New York jury unanimously found Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, a stunning conclusion to the historic trial of the former president.

www.yahoo.com

 

[RobF]

And? Again you're posting things and not explaining how it affects the case we're discussing. This doesn't change a thing.

In particular, it doesn't because the entire premise is false to start off with:

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/judge-merchan-did-not-tell-jury-unanimous-verdict-wasnt-needed-convict-trump-2024-06-07/

 

[DaveXA]

In particular, it doesn't because the entire premise is false to start off with:

https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/judge-merchan-did-not-tell-jury-unanimous-verdict-wasnt-needed-convict-trump-2024-06-07/

Indeed.

 

[MT15]

A crime requires charges, indictments, trial and conviction.

This is just completely false. No, the amplification of charges does NOT require that the amplifier be prosecuted. You are getting bad info here, from everything that I have heard or read.

I will stop here as I now see that your post has been thoroughly addressed by LA. Respectfully you need better sources of information because I see you posting opinions from far right sources a lot. Maybe you should read a wider variety of sources?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Manhattan DA is open to delaying Trump’s sentencing date in hush money conviction after Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office says it is open to delaying Donald Trump’s sentencing to brief his motion to set aside his criminal conviction on business fraud charges in the wake of Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

www.cnn.com

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Manhattan DA is open to delaying Trump’s sentencing date in hush money conviction after Supreme Court ruling | CNN Politics

The Manhattan District Attorney’s office says it is open to delaying Donald Trump’s sentencing to brief his motion to set aside his criminal conviction on business fraud charges in the wake of Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity.

www.cnn.com

didn't that happen before he was president?

 

[MT15]

Sentencing has been delayed until September.

 

[Sendai]

And? Again you're posting things and not explaining how it affects the case we're discussing. This doesn't change a thing.

Seems rather obvious. It says “The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.”. Merchan didn’t require a unanimous decision. Rather solid grounds for reversal on appeal

 

[fooferdoggie]

Sentencing has been delayed until September.

sounds like the SC planned this well.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Seems rather obvious. It says “The current position of federal and state courts is that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require unanimous verdicts to convict a criminal defendant.”. Merchan didn’t require a unanimous decision. Rather solid grounds for reversal on appeal

Can you show where Merchan instructed the jury that a unanimous decision was not required?

 

[Sendai]

Can you show where Merchan instructed the jury that a unanimous decision was not required?

Merchan’s jury instructions state:

Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws.

In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.

The Right to a Unanimous Verdict and the Jury Instructions in People v. Trump

Seth Tillman argues that Justice Merchan's jury instructions in Manhattan trial may have denied former President Trump the right to a unanimous verdict.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Merchan’s jury instructions state:


In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.

The Right to a Unanimous Verdict and the Jury Instructions in People v. Trump

Seth Tillman argues that Justice Merchan's jury instructions in Manhattan trial may have denied former President Trump the right to a unanimous verdict.

www.justsecurity.org

Reposting the instructions here, highlighting the part you clearly missed:

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws."

Hope that helps you see that you are completely wrong.

 

[DaveXA]

Reposting the instructions here, highlighting the part you clearly missed:

"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following unlawful means: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws."

Hope that helps you see that you are completely wrong.

Yeah, that's been posted more than once and he just pretends it doesn't exist.

 

[DaveXA]

Merchan’s jury instructions state:


In short, in order to convict, the jury must unanimously agree that a predicate legal violation occurred: (1) or (2) or (3), as listed above. But the jury, according to Merchan’s instructions, need not unanimously agree on any one such predicate violation. The 12-member jury could divide 4-to-4-to-4, where each juror agreed that Trump committed one of the three predicate legal violations, but there is no unanimity required in regard to any one or more of them.

The Right to a Unanimous Verdict and the Jury Instructions in People v. Trump

Seth Tillman argues that Justice Merchan's jury instructions in Manhattan trial may have denied former President Trump the right to a unanimous verdict.

www.justsecurity.org

Lol, you're missing some important parts. Fortunately another poster posted it.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yeah, that's been posted more than once and he just pretends it doesn't exist.

Yeah, but maybe blowing it up will help him see it better until he's able to get the glasses he clearly needs. lol

 

[SaintForLife]

Judge Merchan just postponed Trump’s sentencing to September 18, “if necessary,” and ordered briefs on the impact of yesterday’s Supreme Court immunity decision

Trump's hush money sentencing delayed to Sept. 18 after Supreme Court immunity ruling

Former President Donald Trump's New York criminal sentencing has been delayed to Sept. 18 after the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling.

www.usatoday.com

 

[FullMonte]

The falsification requires another crime in order for there to be a felony. A crime requires charges, indictments, trial and conviction. None of that happened. There was no charge/specific statutory citation or identification for either the state election law or federal tax law in the charges. They were not litigated at any point during the prosecution. That’s a bit of a fifth amendment due process issue.

I know others have addressed it, but just to put the final pin in it, here is what the law actually says:

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

Note that last part after the last comma: "when his intent to defraud includes an INTENT to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

It does not require another crime. It does not require charges, indictments, trial, and conviction. It simply requires proving that there was an INTENT to commit/aid/conceal another crime.

The alleged crimes that were not charged, indicted, tried and convicted were revealed in closing arguments. One was a state election law. Congress has carved out election law for federal campaigns so state election law doesn’t apply.

Why not? The law says "another crime." How can "another crime" be interpreted to only mean certain crimes within certain jurisdictions. In plain english "another crime," means any other crime.

 

[faceman]

didn't that happen before he was president?

Yes, and this is what I'm thinking. He gets immunity for crimes committed before he's even elected President? Needless
to say Scotus has open a big can of worms in my opinion.

 

[FullMonte]

didn't that happen before he was president?

I think the argument is that, for example, Hope Hicks testimony about conversations they had in 2017 were official acts, since he was president and she was an adviser, therefore, that testimony should be excluded.