Trump Trials Watch I

You can see why Merchan didn't want want this guy destroying the prosecution's case.

[tw]1792990238102438318[/tw]
 
Now the left has to do whatever it takes to secure a conviction or else their own base will revolt against them.
 
Garmel said:
You can see why Merchan didn't want want this guy destroying the prosecution's case.

[tw]1792990238102438318[/tw]
Click to expand...


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.
 
Garmel said:
"Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed"

https://www.politico.com/live-updat...nanimity-needed-for-predicate-crimes-00159225

Ignoring SCOTUS rulings is not a good look. This decision by the judge causes this case to get overturned in the appellate courts.

[tw]1794526058597003438[/tw]
Click to expand...

This is not a CCE prosecution. Trump is accused of breaking the law by falsifying business records to cover up another crime. His RICO case is a CCE prosecution. This one is not.
 
cajunrevenge said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Garmel said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
From a republican lawyer. Read what he says about the statute Bragg is using.

[tw]1795435600461328595[/tw]
 
cajunrevenge said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol
 
msstate7 said:
Most criminal laws are easy to understand. Did he kill/steal/possess?
Click to expand...

In more complicated cases, both the defense and prosecution file motions with the judge giving him or her advice on jury instruction. After that the judge instructs the jury on the applicable law. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure that's how it's done.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Show me a criminal trial with a jury where an "expert" testified on the law to the jury.
Click to expand...

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:
Carp said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
nsacpi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why did he allow Cohen to do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top