Always treat others with respect and kindness, even if you disagree with them. Avoid making personal attacks or insulting others, and try to maintain a civil and constructive tone in your discussions.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 3
Thanks for being so generous with your time. Can you comment to Dersh and explain the law to him? Thank you. “ A prosecution so crooked it would make Joseph Stalin blush! “. ALAN DERSHOWITZ reveals the exact courtroom moment he …
https://open.substack.com/pub/dersh/p/a-prosecutio...
No. of Recommendations: 14
Thanks for being so generous with your time. Can you comment to Dersh and explain the law to him? Thank you. Sure! Here's the highlights:
In fact, the prosecution didn't tell the court what Trump's other 'crimes' were until their closing arguments on Wednesday – by which point the defense had no opportunity to respond.This is categorically false. The prosecution outlined the "other crimes" to the court back in the pre-trial motion phase. They're discussed at length in the Court's order on the motion to dismiss! Three and a half months ago! The judge listed them all, and even threw one of the predicate crimes out! Dersh is either flat-out lying here, or he never bothered to read the pleadings in the case.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24432832/20...In his closing instructions, Judge Juan Merchan exposed his already apparent bias once more – telling the jurors that they didn't actually have to agree on the specifics of Trump's unlawful behavior.
How could someone defend themselves against such vague allegations?Very easily! The allegations aren't vague, and Trump's defense counsel knew what they were! Merchan just told the jurors that they didn't have to all agree on each of the predicate crimes - which is true! That's what the law is. Why is that showing bias? Dersh doesn't have to like the law, but that's what the law is.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Very easily! The allegations aren't vague, and Trump's defense counsel knew what they were! Merchan just told the jurors that they didn't have to all agree on each of the predicate crimes - which is true! That's what the law is. Why is that showing bias? Dersh doesn't have to like the law, but that's what the law is.
Albaby, your patience and forbearance are astounding. I don't know how you do it! Sadly, your wealth of facts and rational arguments always seem to go nowhere with some here. But the rest of us sure do appreciate your indefatigable work.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Merchan just told the jurors that they didn't have to all agree on each of the predicate crimes - which is true! That's what the law is. Why is that showing bias? Dersh doesn't have to like the law, but that's what the law is. - Albaby
-----------------
The judicial process is tilted towards protecting the rights of the accused as it should be. With that in mind, it seems how can a jury not be required to reach consensus on "the" crime or crimes which resulted in the prosecution in the first place.
I recall you said this "no-need-for-consensus feature" of NY Law has been upheld on appeal, but has this issue ever been upheld by SCOTUS?
No. of Recommendations: 4
Albaby, your patience and forbearance are astounding. I don't know how you do it! Sadly, your wealth of facts and rational arguments always seem to go nowhere with some here. But the rest of us sure do appreciate your indefatigable work.
I've come to loggerheads with Albaby1 on a few issues but his arguments are always well-thought out, well presented and civil.
It takes a fair amount of his time to politely respond ad nauseum to people who seem to be, I don't know, mired in cultthink?
Anyhow, I appreciate his clear concise explanations especially when they differ from some guys like Jay Kuo.
Writers like Albaby help prevent groupthink.
No. of Recommendations: 8
With that in mind, it seems how can a jury not be required to reach consensus on "the" crime or crimes which resulted in the prosecution in the first place.
I'll give you an example:
Bob breaks into his ex-girlfriend's apartment one night. She's home, and scares him off with a loaded gun. Bob is charged with burglary, which is defined as the "unlawful breaking and entering into the dwelling place of another at night with intent to commit a crime therein." Bob was observed earlier in a bar saying he was going to break into his girlfriend's apartment and either steal all her stuff or maybe rough her up a bit - he'll see what he felt like.
We get to trial, and the defense tries to claim that the prosecution needs to prove - and get unanimity on - which of those two felonies Bob intended to commit. There's no dispute that he intended to commit a crime - but does the prosecution need to get the jurors to agree which of those two crimes was the one he intended to commit? The answer is no. As long as they're unanimous in finding that he intended to commit a crime, it doesn't matter that some of them thought the intended crime was robbery and the others thought it was aggravated assault.
This is apparently not all that uncommon, and happens a lot with conspiracy cases, apparently, where there's no doubt that a defendant entered into agreements with various people to commit crimes, but it's not entirely clear whether he agreed to join the criminal gang in a conversation with A or B or C or whomever, or which specific crimes he agreed to commit. The jury just needs to unanimously conclude that the agreement was reached, but not necessarily on the details of which specific other member of the conspiracy he actually said 'yes' to or which of the gang's crimes he agreed (or did not agree) to participate in.
They only need agree that an element of the crime was proven, not unanimity on how that element was met. If Bob threatens his ex-girlfriend with a weapon, and the jury is not certain whether what he threatened her with was a knife or a gun, it doesn't matter - they have unanimously agreed that he threatened her with a deadly weapon, so it's aggravated rather than simple assault. The same is true here.
I recall you said this "no-need-for-consensus feature" of NY Law has been upheld on appeal, but has this issue ever been upheld by SCOTUS?
I don't believe so. If there was a Supreme Court case on point, one of the parties certainly would have cited to it, and Marchan certainly would have followed it.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Bob breaks into his ex-girlfriend's apartment one night. She's home, and scares him off with a loaded gun. Bob is charged with burglary, which is defined as the "unlawful breaking and entering into the dwelling place of another at night with intent to commit a crime therein." Bob was observed earlier in a bar saying he was going to break into his girlfriend's apartment and either steal all her stuff or maybe rough her up a bit - he'll see what he felt like. - albaby
---------------------
I think that is a flawed analogy because there is an essential temporal component that is different.
Bob can be charged with burglary period. Whether or not he was going to steal or rough her up does not affect whether he can be prosecuted for burglary. Even if he said nothing in the bar, he can still be charged with burglary so that is what makes those secondary assertions irrelevant to being able to charge the burglary.
With Trump, he cannot be charged with falsifying business records because of the Statute of Limitations. He can only be charged with falsification of business records, if and only if, he is guilty of a separate crime that defeats the SOL. It seems only fair in Trumps case that the separate crime would first have to identified and proven in order for the trial to proceed. The dependency on guilt in a secondary crime is what makes Trumps case different that Bob's hypothetical burglary.
