People that want it
People that want it
Ivermectin Man
You can see why Merchan didn't want want this guy destroying the prosecution's case.
"Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed"
https://www.politico.com/live-update...rimes-00159225
Ignoring SCOTUS rulings is not a good look. This decision by the judge causes this case to get overturned in the appellate courts.
Last edited by Garmel; 05-26-2024 at 08:45 AM.
Now the left has to do whatever it takes to secure a conviction or else their own base will revolt against them.
Natural Immunity Croc
Witnesses don't instruct the jury about the law. If your on trial for murder you can't put a witness on that tells the jury that actually murder is legal. Arguments about the law are made to the Judge who will instruct the jury on the law in the jury instructions. Even the guy here admits that's how it works. You people purposely misunderstand basic **** then get mad about it. Over and over again.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
lol
Last edited by Garmel; 05-26-2024 at 02:25 PM.
I should let this go with a "lol" but I just can't. Experts are allowed to give their opinions. Yeah, your interpretation of what Brad Smith said wasn't correct. Yes, he said judges gives the juries instructions but he also says expert knowledge needs to be brought to the jury too. Smith's knowledge on campaign finance is way more than the judge's.
Last edited by Garmel; 05-27-2024 at 10:59 PM.
Natural Immunity Croc
His expertise is in the law around campaign finance. Trump was/is more than allowed to include his take on the law in a filing to the Judge about jury instructions. If Trump side wins the argument about what the jury instructions should say then his "expertise" is brought to the jury. We could have another year of testimony if we are going to bring in everyone with a legal opinion about what is and isnt illegal to testify to the jury.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
From a republican lawyer. Read what he says about the statute Bragg is using.
Show me a criminal trial with a jury where an "expert" testified on the law to the jury.
"Donald Trump will serve a second term as president of the United States.
It’s over."
Little Thethe Nov 19, 2020.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
I have no idea how to even look that up.
Regardless, it's irrelevant, because the Judge already allowed Cohen (at length) to describe what he did, and how violated FECA law. So the jury, who has zero clue about FECA, hears only explanation of the law from Cohen. But that is only Cohen's interpretation. The defense was not allowed an expert witness who could testify why that interpretation of the law is incorrect.3
And you wonder why people have an issue with this?
Last edited by Carp; 05-28-2024 at 01:38 PM.
It is the judge's job to explain the law in his instructions the jury. Maybe he'll do a poor job of it. But judges are supposed to explain the law not witnesses. Witnesses testify to the facts. Or explain technical details of the facts that laypeople might need some help with.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."