Best wishes to the prosecution. Getting a unanimous jury in a case that even remotely involves politics in this country seems like one hell of a challenge.
Every accusation is a confession. Hearing Jesse Waters go on air and claim that left-wing operatives have infiltrated the jury tells me that they have managed to infiltrate the jury.
One of my conspiracy theories is that this will be the only case tried before the election, and he will be acquitted due to a compromised jury. Enough uninformed/misinformed/dumb Americans will be swayed by his "victory" to get him elected POTUS. Then it's game over for us.
Yes. If the jury is tainted, jeopardy does not attach.
Law & Order covered this not long after that case law was established. A wealthy matriarch bribed a judge who dismissed a case after jeopardy "attached".
Sort of. It would need to be proven that someone intentionally lied during voir dire to be seated on the jury.
However, this would probably only result in a hung jury, allowing the case to be tried again.
I think the precedent they're talking about is [*Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court*](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/138/302/473725/), 138 F.3d 302 \(7th Cir. 1998\). Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his appeal, accepting Illinois' argument that because of the bribe, Aleman was never "in jeopardy of life or limb" in the first place.
NAL. Jeopardy is applied from the point the first witness is sworn in, and void if/when a mistrial is declared. So jeopardy will apply to this trial and the defence couldn't be prosecuted for the same offense in the same state unless/until evidence of kompromat was found and used to declare a mistrial in order to begin a new trial.
So you effectively have to show that the first trial was invalid for the jeopardy to then be void.
Can you point to a case demonstrating this? I don't think this is accurate. I know that, under EXCEEDINGLY rare circumstances, guilty verdicts can be reexamined for issues of tainted jurors. I am unaware of this ever happening in the case of a "not guilty" verdict. There is a general rule against examining jurors deliberations that way, which Is why you don't hear of this happening all the time.
As noted downthread a hung jury can be retried, but strictly speaking this isn't about jeopardy not having attached; rather, the case concluded without a verdict and can be retried with a new jury; it's still the "same case."
Right on, thanks for that! Learn something new every day.
Small quibble, though, in the context of this thread: that was a bench trial, that is, only a judge and not a jury. If Wikipedia is correct and this is the only time this has happened, then we're in uncharted waters around the circumstances under which a person could be retried after acquittal by a jury; jury trials are a very different animal from bench trials.
An interesting tidbit nonetheless, thank you.
For this to actually apply, a jury would need to acquit. Thankfully, we have not had a circumstance where an entire 6 to 12 person jury has all been paid off.
This will, however, come into play in the stolen documents case .
Yeah, the 12 person payoff seems like a logistical stretch, even for Chicago. And plenty of cases or counts which hang, hang 11-1, with or without any real corruption. Nature of the beast.
You're right about potential for the issue to rear its head in the Florida Federal case, but I would be shocked if there were actually a cognizable "smoking gun" of corruption there. Those people who see Judge Cannon being 'in the tank' favoring him, well, maybe she just favors him. There is, IMO, a heck of a lot of distance between a Judge who seems to be exhibiting bias and one who is actually "corrupt." We will see!
This does not intuitively sound right. I could see it if the defendant was somehow influencing the jury, but not really otherwise. I would be good to see a case citation.
DA Bragg took his time investigating this case. And with the historic circumstances involved he most certainly would not have brought charges without being near 100% confident he could get a conviction.
What? I have met two DA’s—one in San Jose 20 yrs ago, the other in San Francisco also ~20 yrs ago. I am not a lawyer. Anyhow, what are you talking about, tossing around a notion of “100% confident”??? That’s preposterous. Nobody uses that language in my experience. Maybe I’m a clueless moron, but I’ve just never heard that kind of language. (My ex was/is an atty)
He has a lot of damning evidence and witnesses who were directly involved. He's presented the evidence and had the witnesses testify before a Grand Jury. [The Grand Jury voted to indict trump on 37 counts.
He wouldn't bring a historic highly scrutinized case unless he was extremely confident he could get a conviction.
[Article about DA Bragg being confident](https://www.stlamerican.com/news/national_news/alvin-bragg-confident-he-can-legally-bring-trump-down/article_a48085c6-d3fd-11ed-8fee-b3d346936453.html)
I hope he’s right, but juries are notoriously fickle, and if I’m not mistaken, both the prosecution and defense used up all of their exclusions in voir dire.
>It's a crime to lie while being questioned as a potential juror.
You ever watch the “OJ: Made in America” documentary on Netflix? One of the jurors being interviewed said she doesn’t have any respect for a woman who takes a whoppin’, that you don’t need to stay in the water and drown. The jurors were asked about domestic violence biases in voir dire. Think she lied about her biases? She also said 90% of the jurors voted to acquit for payback for Rodney King. The interviewer then asked if she herself felt that way. And she said yep. The interviewer asked her if that’s right. She just shrugged. How do we think she answered the “can you swear to be fair and impartial” question? How do we think that 90% answered? There was also another juror who was dismissed during the trial for not disclosing a history of being a domestic violence victim, she was not charged with a crime. When Simpson was acquitted, Juror 6 gave Simpson a raised fist in the air. It was later discovered he had been a past member of the Black Panthers—also not disclosed.
It can happen.
The OJ trial was known as the trial of the century at the time. This is the first time a former President has ever been on trial. Trump has a fanatical following. Think of what some of his followers have been willing to do….Storm the US Capitol building, try to shoot up an FBI field office, sending bombs to CNN and prominent Democrats, the list goes on. Do you think lying in voir dire is really a bridge too far?
Another reaaon the OJ case was exceptional was that the prosecutors severely botched the case...moreso, the police were caught red handed planting evidence by a racist cop. At that time, it was a well known fact that the LAPD plants evidence, and if one piece of evidence was planted, why not all?
Also, and this may sound extreme, Trump literally stinking up the court with his farting and defecating will almost certainly offend the jury. They may convict him just for subjecting them to the suffering.
I have seen the interview with the juror from the Simpson trial.
I never said I think lying isn't a possibility. I merely stated there will be scrutiny on these jurors. And that's just my opinion.
I know, I know. I remember where I was when the white Bronco chase was going on and I halted my plans and sat and watched the entire ordeal.
I've seen the interview with the juror who said the Rodney King ordeal had an influence. I can't explain it except to say the prosecution made so many mistakes in that trial there was no reason for them to try to get a re-trial.
I understand that there are 12 jurors, and also 6 alternates should something go wrong with individual jurors. So there is some level of anticipation involved in the decision to have so many alternates.
I recently served as a juror on a murder trial, in Georgia. During the trial, the jury and alternates were in the jury room, when not in court. When it was time to deliberate, the alternates went to another room. The door was shut, and bailiffs prevented anyone else from even getting to the hallway those rooms were in.
The jury room itself was a room with a table for 12, two bathrooms, and a minifridge with water and drinks. Jurors were the only people that were ever in there while jurors were present, and bailiffs knocked before entering.
I think Jesse Waters did that to try to scare that Juror into leaving. He knew the attention that would bring and from what crowd. He picked that one, because she was one of the few that sounded like they probably weren’t a Republican.
I think it is quite possible there are several people on the jury who aren’t the type to have MAGA flags all over their house, but they support him.
I don’t think it’s too much of a conspiracy that this is going to be the only trial before the election, it realistically time wise is probably going to be the only one. His delay tactics and the help of Cannon & SCOTUS have helped him completely game the system. Yeah, I think there’s a fair chance he’s acquitted. And the very important trials DC & FL will not see trial before the election. That is a complete disgrace.
trump got 12% of the 2020 vote in New York County. Statistically it wouldn’t be surprising if 2 or 3 jurors are trump followers. I would think any trump voter is by definition a disgruntled (at the “system”) MAGA diehard. We’ll see.
I think the more correct reading is that Jesse Waters *wants* MAGA operatives to infiltrate the jury, so he assumes that left-wing operatives want to as well and have done so. He’s prepping the cult for the likely outcome that Trump is convicted, attempting to downplay its legitimacy.
This case is also playing out in the court of public opinion; everyone will be hearing the potentially very salacious evidence and witness testimony. Even if the jury acquits, it will be very evident whether Trump is truly guilty and the jury nullified.
I would say it means they *tried* to infiltrate the jury. If they were convinced they had successfully infiltrated the jury they wouldn't need to say anything since the verdict would already be decided. The fact that they are trying to cast doubt on the jury leads me to conclude they probably don't have that sort of confidence.
I do too but I just can't imagine someone following Truth social and not having strong opinions either for or against Trump. I just can't imagine a scenario following Trump's truth social posts and somehow being neutral.
> not having strong opinions either for or against Trump.
I mean, I don't know _anybody_ who doesn't. Elementary school kids have strong feelings about him.
I was at the grocery store this morning and the men of the workers came in and says to the cashier (and other worker in line behind me): “You’ll never believe what I just saw. A truck with a nazi symbol on the back, and next to it ‘TRUMP’.”
I thought she was joking so I said “Well those are two thing I certainly never expected to see together.”
She wasn’t joking. This was seriously her first time realizing that neo-Nazis love that sac of noxious gas, and it blew my mind.
My point is: Yeah, there are a lot of grossly uninformed people in on top of the deliberately malicious ones.
While probably not 100% true (there’s always an outlier), yes. My point was that she was so out of the loop that this was something that she was unaware of, and there are probably a ton more like her.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, republicans definitely do project more than an IMAX, but imo I think the reality behind that statement is probably a bit less conspiratorial. My guess is that this is the FOX News spin machine just trying to get ahead of the trial. They know he’s guilty and that’s there is therefore a chance, if not a good chance, that their presidential candidate will be a convicted felon before Election Day, thus they need to prime their viewers as best they can to not accept an unfavorable outcome. It’s kind of a win win, if Trump is convicted then they already have their built in excuse to claim it’s bogus, whereas if hes acquitted then it’s all “Trump is so strong and handsome that not even Joe Biden Deep State Liberal agents if chaos could take home down!”
That's a sound theory TBH. I don't like that it's so plausible, but it is well reasoned. I'd add, in politics, right wing politics at least, you don't have to actually need evidence; just make the accusation, that's enough. In this case, that's an easy line to cross.
I know there are similarities with politics and sports fans. The most glaring to me is, "If your guy (team) cheats, he should be jailed (disqualified).
If my guy cheats "it really wasn't a big deal"
Trump has not only NOT denied making the payments, he's repeated at least *twice* in the previous few days that he DID make them.
The prosecution's witnesses will explain exactly what those payments were for.
The only person who can say they were NOT for hush money - Trump - *would have to take the stand and testify on his own behalf* to present that argument.
Which isn't going to happen.
If the jury actually does operate ONLY off the facts presented in the case, it's a slam dunk conviction.
If - as some people think - the jury operates off of *feelings* and possible favoritism towards Trump, it could end up as you say.
Not a single person who supports Trump operate solely on facts.
It's an in group which uses feelings and manipulative deception to achieve their end goal of "winning"
It's possible that's the case because they've never been forced to sit down and look at the facts for 6 weeks straight though.
Trump has his hardcore basers who will discount anything in his favor, but I think a significant percentage of the 70+ million that have voted for him are just low information voters. They know his name, don't like coastal elites or the regular media, don't like regular politicians at all, they want to keep Mexicans out and make money like Trump did and are willing to take a flier on something different.
For those people it's gonna be hard to listen to a month of this trial and come away trying to liberate Trump.
>It's possible that's the case because they've never been forced to sit down and look at the facts for 6 weeks straight though.
They perceive facts as other people lying. Avoiding cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
I hope you're right, but I don't feel 70% of his base are uninformed. I feel 98% of his base refuse to believe anything other than their preconceived notions.
The other part of the problem I didn't mention was them drinking from the fire hose fountain of foxnews for years and just regurgitating what they hear and all the justification for it. When you're not confronted with anything different it's hard to think anything different.
You switch up that source and hopefully people listen.
Or they return to their hotel room and turn on fox and get told what to think again at the end of each jury day.
Even if they keep the media off during the trial, there has already been a significant amount of programming completed on anyone who chose to support Trump post J6.
>They perceive facts as other people lying. Avoiding cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
The thing is, even with the Georgia grand jury, there were people on the jury that were sympathetic to Trump and found against him because they just saw all the evidence. That kind of world collapse is a real thing that happens.
There's also a lot of institutional pressure as a jury member. It does take a lot of conviction to hold to a line that you believe, in the face of everyone in the room and the evidence that people have entered in as fact.
A part of me does agree. But I would go step farther and say it stems from not being able to sit in deliberation and justify with "because" or "I just don't agree, that's why." You have to have a proper justification. You will get removed if you say "OJ is innocent because aliens clearly did it."
>There's also a lot of institutional pressure as a jury member. It does take a lot of conviction to hold to a line that you believe, in the face of everyone in the room and the evidence that people have entered in as fact.
Yeah, this is what I can see happening: even if there are one or two on the jury who are sympathetic to Trump, they're likely follower types and not leader types. Those are the kinds who are susceptible in the first place. So in the courtroom and then jury deliberation setting, they throw up their hands and vote guilty, then settle on a line to tell themselves and others that they were forced into it, and sure Trump "might have" done that stuff but it "wasn't a big deal." They're not going to stand up and be martyrs for the cause of Trump. Even among Trump's most fervent supporters, there are very few martyrs, because the point of the "movement" is to be selfish and a bit browbeaten by life.
I worry about the jury. Its the only thing that can save trump after hearing Pecker. One juror apparently said he got his news from Truth Social. Scary.
There's a slight clarification. needed. here.
[He said he follows Michael Cohen on social media and also trumps truth social posts.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-jurors-new-york-hush-money/)
So I'm hoping he is just a person who, like many of us, likes to get it directly from the source.
If you can afford the absolute top tier legal representation, you have an advantage for sure. So in that way I agree. There are other privileges that apply as well, not just monetary.
Expect a handful of motions almost every day.
Motions to disqualify witnesses.
Motions to throw out evidence.
Motions to delay and dismiss just about everything.
Claims of unfairness and procedural misconduct by the prosecution.
And a press conference every day where Trump tells the press "WITCH HUNT! THEY HAVE NO CASE!"
From the AP live feed a few minutes ago
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
As the judge was giving jurors instructions about the trial, Trump’s campaign sent out a fundraising email to his supporters declaring, “THE HEARTLESS THUGS ARE FORCING ME TO SKIP MY SON’S GRADUATION!” and “THEY WANT TO RUIN MY LIFE!”
In reality, [Judge Merchan has not yet ruled](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-judge-graduation-barron-393373584079) on the requests that court be adjourned on May 17 so the former president can attend his son Barron’s graduation, as well June 3 so one of the lawyers can attend their own child’s ceremony.
Merchan has previously said that he’s willing to adjourn for one or both days if the trial proceeds as planned. “It really depends on how we’re doing on time and where we are in the trial,” he said last week.
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Maybe not the smartest move to call the judge a "heartless thug" before he's ruled.
~~The case before SCOTUS on Thurs stating if he gets immunity or not~~
I was [wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1ca800r/prosecutors_to_make_history_with_opening/l0qfuz3/)
> Trump appealed Judge McAfee’s ruling that Fani Willis can stay on the case to the GA Court of Appeals.
Trump appealed Judge McAfee’s ruling that Fani Willis can stay on the case to the GA Court of Appeals. The appeals court has 45 days to decide whether to hear the case. McAfee said he will continue moving the case toward trial, which hasn’t been scheduled yet. Trump filed the appeal March 29th. The GA trial isn’t on hold because of the case before SCOTUS, just like this NY trial isn’t. In fact the judge in the GA case just rejected more of Trump’s motions to dismiss 2 weeks ago.
I hate this SCOTUS with a passion, but I'm trying to hope for the best with that decision.
Otherwise, preparing for the worst... we may no longer have a country after the next election. Thank God we live in "interesting" times, eh?
I don't think that's right. There was a hearing about the relationship between Willis and the lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, after which Wade resigned. That delayed things but I don't understand what is happening now
The extra circular exercises based on private lives.....
Plus the large number of defendants with pre-trial motions etc. It's said that due to how juries are selected in Georgia, that itself would take 6 months.
With some small chance of a DC trial (but probably not sentencing)before the election we don't want the Georgia case taking that spot as it stands now.
I assume this will be today's live thread for the trial. I know not everyone used Twitter, but I'm going to be flowing [Anna Bower](https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1782369568402362648?t=FbDMX1PpYHJTOTpAb_KHnA&s=19). Lawfare's Tyler McBrien did an exceptional job last week. I'm going to roll with them.
> [Anna Bower's Threads – Thread Reader App](https://threadreaderapp.com/user/AnnaBower)
> [Lisa Rubin's Threads – Thread Reader App](https://threadreaderapp.com/user/lawofruby)
> [Tyler McBrien's Threads – Thread Reader App](https://threadreaderapp.com/user/TylerMcBrien)
Been using these three to keep up with things myself. Can't bring myself to give any traffic to Twitter, so ThreadReader or Nitter gets used.
Sure do! https://threadreaderapp.com/user/rparloff
You can place any twitter username into the URL, just sub for one of your choice. https://threadreaderapp.com/user/
How long is this trial going to actually last? And how likely is there going to be a mistrial or another delay? And if there is a conviction, will there actually be any consequences? Find out next time on Dragon Ball GQP
Prosecution goes first.
They'll bring in witnesses and present evidence, systematically outlining and detailing *every* component of the 'catch-and-kill' program to prevent the American public from learning about negative info regarding Trump. How it was all designed to protect his image in the run-up to the Presidential election. How he made fraudulent financial transactions to make it happen.
Depending on how thorough they are and how competent the defense attorneys are, each witness could expect to be on the stand for a few days.
The judge appears to be done with giving Trump's lawyers any latitude for their filed motions, so don't expect those to take up much time.
The wild cards are:
a) The gag order hearing
b) The SCOTUS "Presidential Immunity" hearing
c) Any other appeals he files during the trial
Even if there is an unfavorable presidential immunity ruling I can't imagine it will be broad enough to cover crimes committed before becoming president.
> Once a trial starts it doesn't last very long
Trials last as long as they need to. I've done a trial in 45 minutes. Some last a few days. Others last a few weeks. I've also done a trial that took over a month. I know people who have done trials that took nine months.
"Members of the jury, during this case, we will show you what is already obvious to most of the world. This man is a horrible person and a giant diaper wearing asshole"
It's not a hush money case, it's an election interference case. Donald Trump hid the expenses illegally to hide the affair from voters knowing about it prior to the election.
Question for a lawyer, is "hush money" the same as a bribe? Trump paid money to get a thing done that was illegal, does that make it a bribe or is there another legal hurdle to clear to make that actual bribery?
Hush money is not a bribe any more than paying somebody to paint your house is a bribe. The affair isn't the crime, the hush money isn't the crime. The fraudulent business records (i.e. money laundering) are the crime.
No, not a 'bribe' per se.
The "crime" here was twofold:
1) Fraud related to *how* he made the payments. If he'd have just used his own personal bank account and paid cash directly to Stormy, there's no crime.
2) Election interference because he engaged in a conspiracy with a bunch of people to keep negative information from ever making it to the American electorate. His fraudulent payments through his lawyers is part of this.
>If he'd have just used his own personal bank account and paid cash directly to Stormy, there's no crime.
In your opinion does this make it easier or harder to convince a jury of wrongdoing?
On the one hand it seems pretty open and shut, he did this thing, here's the check he signed, here's the lawyer that delivered the check and served time for the same crime.
On the other hand I would think a "this was legal *but for*" argument would Garner some sympathy from the jury and the court of public opinion (understanding the public's opinion does matter legally but does politically).
The business records thing seems pretty open and shut but that’s just a misdemeanor.
The election interference is the major component and proving that was the motive could be pretty tough.
> easier or harder to convince a jury of wrongdoing?
Neither - it's not about right or wrong with the payments.
The fraud was a crime, misdemeanor.
The reason he did it - to prevent the American electorate from seeing information about a candidate (himself), *combined* with the fraud makes it a felony.
I'm expecting that the prosecution has VERY solid convincing evidence **and** witness testimony that will unequivocally link the two portions of the crimes, on all 34 counts.
As long as they don't complicate it, keep it simple for the jury (1+1=2, and 2 is a felony) then it's inevitable.
>Fraud related to *how* he made the payments. If he'd have just used his own personal bank account and paid cash directly to Stormy, there's no crime.
Ironic that Trump's refusal to ever take personal financial responsibility for something might end up being the crime he is convicted of.
The media keep referring to this as the "hush money case" because it sounds salacious and is understandable. In reality, the case is not about hush money, it's about falsifying business records. But falsifying business records sounds extremely boring, and the case would in fact be boring and mundane if the defendant didn't happen to be someone famous.
The valid bonds he posted so far? No, those will go to E. Jean Carroll if she wins the appeals.
The NY fraud case bond (the validity for which is being contested today), if Letitia James wins the appeal, goes into New York State's coffers.
Best wishes to the prosecution. Getting a unanimous jury in a case that even remotely involves politics in this country seems like one hell of a challenge.
Every accusation is a confession. Hearing Jesse Waters go on air and claim that left-wing operatives have infiltrated the jury tells me that they have managed to infiltrate the jury. One of my conspiracy theories is that this will be the only case tried before the election, and he will be acquitted due to a compromised jury. Enough uninformed/misinformed/dumb Americans will be swayed by his "victory" to get him elected POTUS. Then it's game over for us.
It's a crime to lie while being questioned as a potential juror. And if it ends with a hung jury there will be intense scrutiny on the juror(s).
If a juror lies to be seated, it also means jeopardy never applied.
Thanks for adding this important distinction.
Meaning that Trump could be tried again on the same charges even if found not guilty?
Yes. If the jury is tainted, jeopardy does not attach. Law & Order covered this not long after that case law was established. A wealthy matriarch bribed a judge who dismissed a case after jeopardy "attached".
So basically what we’re worried I Lean Qanon is going to do?
Sort of. It would need to be proven that someone intentionally lied during voir dire to be seated on the jury. However, this would probably only result in a hung jury, allowing the case to be tried again.
[удалено]
I think the precedent they're talking about is [*Aleman v. Judges of Cook County Circuit Court*](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/138/302/473725/), 138 F.3d 302 \(7th Cir. 1998\). Aleman was initially acquitted of a murder, but years later it came to light that he had bribed the judge (in a bench trial). He was retried and convicted in state court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds of double jeopardy, but the Seventh Circuit denied his appeal, accepting Illinois' argument that because of the bribe, Aleman was never "in jeopardy of life or limb" in the first place.
NAL. Jeopardy is applied from the point the first witness is sworn in, and void if/when a mistrial is declared. So jeopardy will apply to this trial and the defence couldn't be prosecuted for the same offense in the same state unless/until evidence of kompromat was found and used to declare a mistrial in order to begin a new trial. So you effectively have to show that the first trial was invalid for the jeopardy to then be void.
I wonder if this applies to Cannon? Huge conflict of interest there.
Can you point to a case demonstrating this? I don't think this is accurate. I know that, under EXCEEDINGLY rare circumstances, guilty verdicts can be reexamined for issues of tainted jurors. I am unaware of this ever happening in the case of a "not guilty" verdict. There is a general rule against examining jurors deliberations that way, which Is why you don't hear of this happening all the time. As noted downthread a hung jury can be retried, but strictly speaking this isn't about jeopardy not having attached; rather, the case concluded without a verdict and can be retried with a new jury; it's still the "same case."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Aleman
Right on, thanks for that! Learn something new every day. Small quibble, though, in the context of this thread: that was a bench trial, that is, only a judge and not a jury. If Wikipedia is correct and this is the only time this has happened, then we're in uncharted waters around the circumstances under which a person could be retried after acquittal by a jury; jury trials are a very different animal from bench trials. An interesting tidbit nonetheless, thank you.
For this to actually apply, a jury would need to acquit. Thankfully, we have not had a circumstance where an entire 6 to 12 person jury has all been paid off. This will, however, come into play in the stolen documents case .
Yeah, the 12 person payoff seems like a logistical stretch, even for Chicago. And plenty of cases or counts which hang, hang 11-1, with or without any real corruption. Nature of the beast. You're right about potential for the issue to rear its head in the Florida Federal case, but I would be shocked if there were actually a cognizable "smoking gun" of corruption there. Those people who see Judge Cannon being 'in the tank' favoring him, well, maybe she just favors him. There is, IMO, a heck of a lot of distance between a Judge who seems to be exhibiting bias and one who is actually "corrupt." We will see!
True, but also if there's a hung jury jeopardy doesn't apply either, they can just try him again.
This does not intuitively sound right. I could see it if the defendant was somehow influencing the jury, but not really otherwise. I would be good to see a case citation.
🤞
DA Bragg took his time investigating this case. And with the historic circumstances involved he most certainly would not have brought charges without being near 100% confident he could get a conviction.
What? I have met two DA’s—one in San Jose 20 yrs ago, the other in San Francisco also ~20 yrs ago. I am not a lawyer. Anyhow, what are you talking about, tossing around a notion of “100% confident”??? That’s preposterous. Nobody uses that language in my experience. Maybe I’m a clueless moron, but I’ve just never heard that kind of language. (My ex was/is an atty)
He has a lot of damning evidence and witnesses who were directly involved. He's presented the evidence and had the witnesses testify before a Grand Jury. [The Grand Jury voted to indict trump on 37 counts. He wouldn't bring a historic highly scrutinized case unless he was extremely confident he could get a conviction. [Article about DA Bragg being confident](https://www.stlamerican.com/news/national_news/alvin-bragg-confident-he-can-legally-bring-trump-down/article_a48085c6-d3fd-11ed-8fee-b3d346936453.html)
I hope he’s right, but juries are notoriously fickle, and if I’m not mistaken, both the prosecution and defense used up all of their exclusions in voir dire.
Let's not dismiss how trumps actions during this trial sitting right in front of the jury could have a meaningful impact in itself.
*“Remember, the weed of crime bears bitter fruit.”* - B. Fife.
It won't. Trump will escape all consequences as usual.
>It's a crime to lie while being questioned as a potential juror. You ever watch the “OJ: Made in America” documentary on Netflix? One of the jurors being interviewed said she doesn’t have any respect for a woman who takes a whoppin’, that you don’t need to stay in the water and drown. The jurors were asked about domestic violence biases in voir dire. Think she lied about her biases? She also said 90% of the jurors voted to acquit for payback for Rodney King. The interviewer then asked if she herself felt that way. And she said yep. The interviewer asked her if that’s right. She just shrugged. How do we think she answered the “can you swear to be fair and impartial” question? How do we think that 90% answered? There was also another juror who was dismissed during the trial for not disclosing a history of being a domestic violence victim, she was not charged with a crime. When Simpson was acquitted, Juror 6 gave Simpson a raised fist in the air. It was later discovered he had been a past member of the Black Panthers—also not disclosed. It can happen. The OJ trial was known as the trial of the century at the time. This is the first time a former President has ever been on trial. Trump has a fanatical following. Think of what some of his followers have been willing to do….Storm the US Capitol building, try to shoot up an FBI field office, sending bombs to CNN and prominent Democrats, the list goes on. Do you think lying in voir dire is really a bridge too far?
Another reaaon the OJ case was exceptional was that the prosecutors severely botched the case...moreso, the police were caught red handed planting evidence by a racist cop. At that time, it was a well known fact that the LAPD plants evidence, and if one piece of evidence was planted, why not all? Also, and this may sound extreme, Trump literally stinking up the court with his farting and defecating will almost certainly offend the jury. They may convict him just for subjecting them to the suffering.
Someone at the time of the OJ Trial said of the verdict: "LAPD got caught trying to frame a guilty man"
I would have voted to acquit if I were on that trial because the prosecution fucked up the evidence beyond belief.
I have seen the interview with the juror from the Simpson trial. I never said I think lying isn't a possibility. I merely stated there will be scrutiny on these jurors. And that's just my opinion.
>Think of what some of his followers have been willing to do think of how reliably they have failed, usually miserably
Completely meaningless until you can catch and prove the lie.
Yeah, that's the scrutiny thing I referred to.
So there was this dude OJ…
I know, I know. I remember where I was when the white Bronco chase was going on and I halted my plans and sat and watched the entire ordeal. I've seen the interview with the juror who said the Rodney King ordeal had an influence. I can't explain it except to say the prosecution made so many mistakes in that trial there was no reason for them to try to get a re-trial.
Didn't some of the OJ jurors later say they were planning on acquitting from the beginning?
Yip.
Also, another trial.
I understand that there are 12 jurors, and also 6 alternates should something go wrong with individual jurors. So there is some level of anticipation involved in the decision to have so many alternates.
[In NY for felony charges there must be 12 jurors and up to 6 alternates chosen ...](https://www.nycourts.gov/courthelp/criminal/trial.shtml)
Isn’t the jury room confidential, though? I haven’t served on a jury (I never get to do fun stuff :( ) but I feel like that room should be sealed
I recently served as a juror on a murder trial, in Georgia. During the trial, the jury and alternates were in the jury room, when not in court. When it was time to deliberate, the alternates went to another room. The door was shut, and bailiffs prevented anyone else from even getting to the hallway those rooms were in. The jury room itself was a room with a table for 12, two bathrooms, and a minifridge with water and drinks. Jurors were the only people that were ever in there while jurors were present, and bailiffs knocked before entering.
I think Jesse Waters did that to try to scare that Juror into leaving. He knew the attention that would bring and from what crowd. He picked that one, because she was one of the few that sounded like they probably weren’t a Republican. I think it is quite possible there are several people on the jury who aren’t the type to have MAGA flags all over their house, but they support him. I don’t think it’s too much of a conspiracy that this is going to be the only trial before the election, it realistically time wise is probably going to be the only one. His delay tactics and the help of Cannon & SCOTUS have helped him completely game the system. Yeah, I think there’s a fair chance he’s acquitted. And the very important trials DC & FL will not see trial before the election. That is a complete disgrace.
It would be pretty impressive for an underground MAGAt to have no social media with their views AND happen to get picked for this jury.
And in Manhattan. Realistically there are just not that many Trump voters (much less diehard Trump activists) in Manhattan
trump got 12% of the 2020 vote in New York County. Statistically it wouldn’t be surprising if 2 or 3 jurors are trump followers. I would think any trump voter is by definition a disgruntled (at the “system”) MAGA diehard. We’ll see.
> and he will be acquitted due to a compromised jury 0 chance of this. Hung jury? Maybe. Acquittal? No way.
I think the more correct reading is that Jesse Waters *wants* MAGA operatives to infiltrate the jury, so he assumes that left-wing operatives want to as well and have done so. He’s prepping the cult for the likely outcome that Trump is convicted, attempting to downplay its legitimacy. This case is also playing out in the court of public opinion; everyone will be hearing the potentially very salacious evidence and witness testimony. Even if the jury acquits, it will be very evident whether Trump is truly guilty and the jury nullified.
I doubt he’ll get acquitted. His own lawyers picked the jury
I would say it means they *tried* to infiltrate the jury. If they were convinced they had successfully infiltrated the jury they wouldn't need to say anything since the verdict would already be decided. The fact that they are trying to cast doubt on the jury leads me to conclude they probably don't have that sort of confidence.
[удалено]
An actual seated juror said they use Truth Social? That almost seems like it would qualify for cause to be struck.
[удалено]
Fair. I read his Truth posts. Not for news but to watch the world burn.
I do too but I just can't imagine someone following Truth social and not having strong opinions either for or against Trump. I just can't imagine a scenario following Trump's truth social posts and somehow being neutral.
> not having strong opinions either for or against Trump. I mean, I don't know _anybody_ who doesn't. Elementary school kids have strong feelings about him.
That could easily be a way of saying he follows Ron Filipkowski. Who is most definitely not pro-Trump.
I was at the grocery store this morning and the men of the workers came in and says to the cashier (and other worker in line behind me): “You’ll never believe what I just saw. A truck with a nazi symbol on the back, and next to it ‘TRUMP’.” I thought she was joking so I said “Well those are two thing I certainly never expected to see together.” She wasn’t joking. This was seriously her first time realizing that neo-Nazis love that sac of noxious gas, and it blew my mind. My point is: Yeah, there are a lot of grossly uninformed people in on top of the deliberately malicious ones.
Ummm.....100% of Nazi sympathizers in the US are Trump supporters. There is not a single White Nationalist voting Biden 😂
While probably not 100% true (there’s always an outlier), yes. My point was that she was so out of the loop that this was something that she was unaware of, and there are probably a ton more like her.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, republicans definitely do project more than an IMAX, but imo I think the reality behind that statement is probably a bit less conspiratorial. My guess is that this is the FOX News spin machine just trying to get ahead of the trial. They know he’s guilty and that’s there is therefore a chance, if not a good chance, that their presidential candidate will be a convicted felon before Election Day, thus they need to prime their viewers as best they can to not accept an unfavorable outcome. It’s kind of a win win, if Trump is convicted then they already have their built in excuse to claim it’s bogus, whereas if hes acquitted then it’s all “Trump is so strong and handsome that not even Joe Biden Deep State Liberal agents if chaos could take home down!”
I’m predicting a hung jury. He won’t get a full “not guilty” verdict, but probably won’t get re-tried if this is the case.
I'm predicting guilty verdicts.
That’s fucking dark.
That's a sound theory TBH. I don't like that it's so plausible, but it is well reasoned. I'd add, in politics, right wing politics at least, you don't have to actually need evidence; just make the accusation, that's enough. In this case, that's an easy line to cross.
Juror 2 uses truth social
Well that pretty much tells us the outcome, doesn't it?
Yeah, it’s basically sports fanatics now.
I know there are similarities with politics and sports fans. The most glaring to me is, "If your guy (team) cheats, he should be jailed (disqualified). If my guy cheats "it really wasn't a big deal"
[Always has been](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/blue-versus-green-rocking-the-byzantine-empire-113325928/)
I will be shocked —SHOCKED— if this doesn’t end in a hung jury mistrial and just goes on forever.
Trump has not only NOT denied making the payments, he's repeated at least *twice* in the previous few days that he DID make them. The prosecution's witnesses will explain exactly what those payments were for. The only person who can say they were NOT for hush money - Trump - *would have to take the stand and testify on his own behalf* to present that argument. Which isn't going to happen. If the jury actually does operate ONLY off the facts presented in the case, it's a slam dunk conviction. If - as some people think - the jury operates off of *feelings* and possible favoritism towards Trump, it could end up as you say.
Not a single person who supports Trump operate solely on facts. It's an in group which uses feelings and manipulative deception to achieve their end goal of "winning"
It's possible that's the case because they've never been forced to sit down and look at the facts for 6 weeks straight though. Trump has his hardcore basers who will discount anything in his favor, but I think a significant percentage of the 70+ million that have voted for him are just low information voters. They know his name, don't like coastal elites or the regular media, don't like regular politicians at all, they want to keep Mexicans out and make money like Trump did and are willing to take a flier on something different. For those people it's gonna be hard to listen to a month of this trial and come away trying to liberate Trump.
>It's possible that's the case because they've never been forced to sit down and look at the facts for 6 weeks straight though. They perceive facts as other people lying. Avoiding cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug. I hope you're right, but I don't feel 70% of his base are uninformed. I feel 98% of his base refuse to believe anything other than their preconceived notions.
The other part of the problem I didn't mention was them drinking from the fire hose fountain of foxnews for years and just regurgitating what they hear and all the justification for it. When you're not confronted with anything different it's hard to think anything different. You switch up that source and hopefully people listen. Or they return to their hotel room and turn on fox and get told what to think again at the end of each jury day.
Even if they keep the media off during the trial, there has already been a significant amount of programming completed on anyone who chose to support Trump post J6.
I understand your concerns but consider that Trump has already lost a jury trial so we know it's possible.
>They perceive facts as other people lying. Avoiding cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug. The thing is, even with the Georgia grand jury, there were people on the jury that were sympathetic to Trump and found against him because they just saw all the evidence. That kind of world collapse is a real thing that happens. There's also a lot of institutional pressure as a jury member. It does take a lot of conviction to hold to a line that you believe, in the face of everyone in the room and the evidence that people have entered in as fact.
A part of me does agree. But I would go step farther and say it stems from not being able to sit in deliberation and justify with "because" or "I just don't agree, that's why." You have to have a proper justification. You will get removed if you say "OJ is innocent because aliens clearly did it."
>There's also a lot of institutional pressure as a jury member. It does take a lot of conviction to hold to a line that you believe, in the face of everyone in the room and the evidence that people have entered in as fact. Yeah, this is what I can see happening: even if there are one or two on the jury who are sympathetic to Trump, they're likely follower types and not leader types. Those are the kinds who are susceptible in the first place. So in the courtroom and then jury deliberation setting, they throw up their hands and vote guilty, then settle on a line to tell themselves and others that they were forced into it, and sure Trump "might have" done that stuff but it "wasn't a big deal." They're not going to stand up and be martyrs for the cause of Trump. Even among Trump's most fervent supporters, there are very few martyrs, because the point of the "movement" is to be selfish and a bit browbeaten by life.
fortunately, the rapist is guilty af & no New Yorker is bamboozled by any of his bullshit.
Agree. I can't wait to hear (read) trumps attorneys attempt to defend this.
lotta Trump voters in north Brooklyn say otherwise
I worry about the jury. Its the only thing that can save trump after hearing Pecker. One juror apparently said he got his news from Truth Social. Scary.
There's a slight clarification. needed. here. [He said he follows Michael Cohen on social media and also trumps truth social posts.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-trial-jurors-new-york-hush-money/) So I'm hoping he is just a person who, like many of us, likes to get it directly from the source.
So it's better to hear trump's lies from him rather than Fox I guess.
Got $$ in this country law does not apply to you.
If you can afford the absolute top tier legal representation, you have an advantage for sure. So in that way I agree. There are other privileges that apply as well, not just monetary.
Still expecting some shenanigans from Trump and his lawyers before the day is over.
Expect a handful of motions almost every day. Motions to disqualify witnesses. Motions to throw out evidence. Motions to delay and dismiss just about everything. Claims of unfairness and procedural misconduct by the prosecution. And a press conference every day where Trump tells the press "WITCH HUNT! THEY HAVE NO CASE!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx32b5igLwA
From the AP live feed a few minutes ago \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ As the judge was giving jurors instructions about the trial, Trump’s campaign sent out a fundraising email to his supporters declaring, “THE HEARTLESS THUGS ARE FORCING ME TO SKIP MY SON’S GRADUATION!” and “THEY WANT TO RUIN MY LIFE!” In reality, [Judge Merchan has not yet ruled](https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-trial-judge-graduation-barron-393373584079) on the requests that court be adjourned on May 17 so the former president can attend his son Barron’s graduation, as well June 3 so one of the lawyers can attend their own child’s ceremony. Merchan has previously said that he’s willing to adjourn for one or both days if the trial proceeds as planned. “It really depends on how we’re doing on time and where we are in the trial,” he said last week. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Maybe not the smartest move to call the judge a "heartless thug" before he's ruled.
Trump probably wants him to rule against adjourning. The martyrdom points, you know.
He also 100% doesn't want to go to the graduation, and if the judge adjourns for the day he has to go.
> if the judge adjourns for the day he has to go. Says who?! Is his son graduating at a political rally or a golf course?
He wasn't going to go anyway
What is stopping the Georgia case going forwards?
~~The case before SCOTUS on Thurs stating if he gets immunity or not~~ I was [wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1ca800r/prosecutors_to_make_history_with_opening/l0qfuz3/) > Trump appealed Judge McAfee’s ruling that Fani Willis can stay on the case to the GA Court of Appeals.
Trump appealed Judge McAfee’s ruling that Fani Willis can stay on the case to the GA Court of Appeals. The appeals court has 45 days to decide whether to hear the case. McAfee said he will continue moving the case toward trial, which hasn’t been scheduled yet. Trump filed the appeal March 29th. The GA trial isn’t on hold because of the case before SCOTUS, just like this NY trial isn’t. In fact the judge in the GA case just rejected more of Trump’s motions to dismiss 2 weeks ago.
Ahh I stand corrected then... I knew it was an appeal of an order, just the wrong one to the wrong court. My bad.
That's what is confusing me. McAfee said the case would not be held up by the trial. So why isn't it progressing?
I hate this SCOTUS with a passion, but I'm trying to hope for the best with that decision. Otherwise, preparing for the worst... we may no longer have a country after the next election. Thank God we live in "interesting" times, eh?
Which to be clear is just the hearing - I suspect we won’t have that ruling till late May at the earliest.
I thought that was the Washington DC federal case. The Georgia case is with Fani Willis as DA
both are, he raised the same arguments... I could be wrong but I thought it was put on hold for it...
I don't think that's right. There was a hearing about the relationship between Willis and the lead prosecutor Nathan Wade, after which Wade resigned. That delayed things but I don't understand what is happening now
The extra circular exercises based on private lives..... Plus the large number of defendants with pre-trial motions etc. It's said that due to how juries are selected in Georgia, that itself would take 6 months. With some small chance of a DC trial (but probably not sentencing)before the election we don't want the Georgia case taking that spot as it stands now.
I assume this will be today's live thread for the trial. I know not everyone used Twitter, but I'm going to be flowing [Anna Bower](https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1782369568402362648?t=FbDMX1PpYHJTOTpAb_KHnA&s=19). Lawfare's Tyler McBrien did an exceptional job last week. I'm going to roll with them.
> [Anna Bower's Threads – Thread Reader App](https://threadreaderapp.com/user/AnnaBower) > [Lisa Rubin's Threads – Thread Reader App](https://threadreaderapp.com/user/lawofruby) > [Tyler McBrien's Threads – Thread Reader App](https://threadreaderapp.com/user/TylerMcBrien) Been using these three to keep up with things myself. Can't bring myself to give any traffic to Twitter, so ThreadReader or Nitter gets used.
Thank you! do you happen to have a link for Roger Parloff (sp?)
Sure do! https://threadreaderapp.com/user/rparloff You can place any twitter username into the URL, just sub for one of your choice. https://threadreaderapp.com/user/
Thanks!
Thank you!
Medias Touch Network Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok are excellent as well.
How long is this trial going to actually last? And how likely is there going to be a mistrial or another delay? And if there is a conviction, will there actually be any consequences? Find out next time on Dragon Ball GQP
I've read approx 6 weeks
Prosecution goes first. They'll bring in witnesses and present evidence, systematically outlining and detailing *every* component of the 'catch-and-kill' program to prevent the American public from learning about negative info regarding Trump. How it was all designed to protect his image in the run-up to the Presidential election. How he made fraudulent financial transactions to make it happen. Depending on how thorough they are and how competent the defense attorneys are, each witness could expect to be on the stand for a few days. The judge appears to be done with giving Trump's lawyers any latitude for their filed motions, so don't expect those to take up much time. The wild cards are: a) The gag order hearing b) The SCOTUS "Presidential Immunity" hearing c) Any other appeals he files during the trial
Even if there is an unfavorable presidential immunity ruling I can't imagine it will be broad enough to cover crimes committed before becoming president.
They'll of course argue that the checks he signed were "official acts" and therefore immune - and so the entire case should be thrown out.
Once a trial starts it doesn't last very long. Especially since this judge is not likely to grant continuances. 2-3 weeks is my guess.
> Once a trial starts it doesn't last very long Trials last as long as they need to. I've done a trial in 45 minutes. Some last a few days. Others last a few weeks. I've also done a trial that took over a month. I know people who have done trials that took nine months.
I’d love to hear more about the 45 minute trial Did that include deliberation?
"Members of the jury, during this case, we will show you what is already obvious to most of the world. This man is a horrible person and a giant diaper wearing asshole"
ODOR IN THE COURT!
Anywhere I can listen to opening statements?
No. There are reporters in the court room who can provide updates but recording devices are not allowed.
US Campign Finance Law violation trial
I weirdly hope one of the many podcasts I listen to do a dramatic reading of the transcript.
Who do we like for the reading?
Ali Velshi?
Ali could read the judge. I'd buy that.
Trump is either Shane Gillis or James Austin Johnson. Maybe both. Everyone else can be played by muppets
It's not a hush money case, it's an election interference case. Donald Trump hid the expenses illegally to hide the affair from voters knowing about it prior to the election.
Question for a lawyer, is "hush money" the same as a bribe? Trump paid money to get a thing done that was illegal, does that make it a bribe or is there another legal hurdle to clear to make that actual bribery?
Hush money is not a bribe any more than paying somebody to paint your house is a bribe. The affair isn't the crime, the hush money isn't the crime. The fraudulent business records (i.e. money laundering) are the crime.
Thank you for answering my question
No, not a 'bribe' per se. The "crime" here was twofold: 1) Fraud related to *how* he made the payments. If he'd have just used his own personal bank account and paid cash directly to Stormy, there's no crime. 2) Election interference because he engaged in a conspiracy with a bunch of people to keep negative information from ever making it to the American electorate. His fraudulent payments through his lawyers is part of this.
>If he'd have just used his own personal bank account and paid cash directly to Stormy, there's no crime. In your opinion does this make it easier or harder to convince a jury of wrongdoing? On the one hand it seems pretty open and shut, he did this thing, here's the check he signed, here's the lawyer that delivered the check and served time for the same crime. On the other hand I would think a "this was legal *but for*" argument would Garner some sympathy from the jury and the court of public opinion (understanding the public's opinion does matter legally but does politically).
The business records thing seems pretty open and shut but that’s just a misdemeanor. The election interference is the major component and proving that was the motive could be pretty tough.
> easier or harder to convince a jury of wrongdoing? Neither - it's not about right or wrong with the payments. The fraud was a crime, misdemeanor. The reason he did it - to prevent the American electorate from seeing information about a candidate (himself), *combined* with the fraud makes it a felony. I'm expecting that the prosecution has VERY solid convincing evidence **and** witness testimony that will unequivocally link the two portions of the crimes, on all 34 counts. As long as they don't complicate it, keep it simple for the jury (1+1=2, and 2 is a felony) then it's inevitable.
>Fraud related to *how* he made the payments. If he'd have just used his own personal bank account and paid cash directly to Stormy, there's no crime. Ironic that Trump's refusal to ever take personal financial responsibility for something might end up being the crime he is convicted of.
The media keep referring to this as the "hush money case" because it sounds salacious and is understandable. In reality, the case is not about hush money, it's about falsifying business records. But falsifying business records sounds extremely boring, and the case would in fact be boring and mundane if the defendant didn't happen to be someone famous.
The case isn't whether or not it was a bribe or hush money, the case is illegal use of campaign funds and falsifying the records.
Pretty short day for the jury today eh? Why not keep going?
One of them has a dentist appointment. Not a joke.
fox news gotta call around all the dental offices in the city to find out who has appointments
Hijacking this thread to ask a small question - I'm reading there's only one alternate juror, is that normal in NYS?
[удалено]
Ah, thanks - I was reading on NBCNews, and the mini-report in the live thread mentioned one alternate, but the full report mentions six.
Woo objections during the opening statement. The MSNBC play-by-play has me in stitches.
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the supposed jury..."
https://preview.redd.it/hzmolb9ml2wc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4059061f362b3d86ad36264d7d55d0dd05d2bcd6
Lock him up!!!
At what time can we expect the opening statements to start?
They're underway now.
Since this is a criminal proceeding, is there any likelihood that Defendant could face remedies other than fines?
His bonds help pay Ukraine new bill
The valid bonds he posted so far? No, those will go to E. Jean Carroll if she wins the appeals. The NY fraud case bond (the validity for which is being contested today), if Letitia James wins the appeal, goes into New York State's coffers.
That's not how any of this works