This is always what you say and you miss the point entirely. RDS can and should promote policies that benefit his consituency. It just completely takes him out of a national election.
Trump Trials Watch I
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
This is always what you say and you miss the point entirely. RDS can and should promote policies that benefit his consituency. It just completely takes him out of a national election.
sturg33
I
good thing we get behind the great compromiser-with-communists
Tapate50
Well-known member
Asking BL if this is normal
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is the rule for applying that law. Sowwy you boyz don't like it. Has been around for a while. Has been applied by judges in this way for a while. Maybe someday it will be overturned. But what the judge is doing in his instructions is not something new.
I'm gonna be going to CVS later this evening to buy some tampons for y'all. What brand do y'all use.
Last edited:
lol
Any bet if this goes before the SCOTUS that law gets overturned because it's not legal?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm just saying the judge's instructions are not unusual for that particular law. There may be a problem with the law itself. I think it will be reviewed and we'll see how it goes. Judge Merchan is a trial judge. He is there to run the trial in accordance with the law.
How many times has it been used?
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is an interesting question that has actually gotten to the Supreme Court. In one particular case it ruled:
“Although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.”
But I think this case might be different enough that the Supreme Court or some other superior court will revisit the issue.
“Although a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict on whether the criminal act charged has been committed, the defendant is not entitled to a unanimous verdict on the precise manner in which the act was committed.”
But I think this case might be different enough that the Supreme Court or some other superior court will revisit the issue.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I don't know the exact number but it has been used in other cases. Such as:
The People of the State of New York v. Josue Aguilar Dubon, AKA Saady Dubon, AKA Alejandro Ortiz (October 2022) — Bronx business owner indicted for failing to report over $1 million in income, avoiding paying $60,000 in taxes.
The People of the State of New York v. Scott Kirtland (February 2022) — Insurance broker indicted for allegedly creating/filing fraudulent certificates of liability insurance to further scheme to defraud.
The People of the State of New York v. James Garner (November 2021) — Mental health therapy aide indicted for allegedly defrauding over $35,000 in workers’ compensation benefits.
The People of the State of New York v. Jose Palmer (November 2016) — Pleaded guilty to petit larceny for unemployment benefits fraud of over $3,000, having initially been indicted for grand larceny and falsifying business records in the first degree.
The People of the State of New York v. Jason Holley (November 2016) — Convicted by jury of falsifying business records in the first degree but acquitted of the predicate crime, insurance fraud.
Last edited:
I'm not a lawyer, much less versed in constitutional law. But I'm reading on Twitter where the US Supreme Court ruled you couldn't do this in Ramos v Louisiana, which would supercede NY State law.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I'm not a lawyer either. The quote I gave earlier is from a different case. Schad vs Arizona. Interestingly it was a 5-4 case mostly with conservative justices in the majority ruling the jury did not have to be unanimous in agreeing on the precise manner in which the crime was carried out and the liberal justices saying "whoa you can't convict someone if half the jury has a different view of how the crime was committed." The law has become ironic in recent years.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
An actual for real violation of the first amendment. I'm glad the Supreme Court smacked it down.
Deester11
Well-known member
And Tr@mps done everything normal. Gotcha.
He followed the Consitution much better than this rogue regime.