3 ms·
They did not focus "on a specific crime the false documents were meant to conceal". They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require th
by leereeves 2y ago
They did not focus "on a specific crime the false documents were meant to conceal". They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require them to declare that he had committed any of those crimes, let alone agree on which. If some of the jurors simply believed that "hush money" is illegal (as many people do), they could have convicted on that basis.
Each of the alleged crimes has subtle details that separate it from the perfectly legal practice of paying someone for non-disclosure. By failing to charge a specific crime, the prosecution avoided discussing those details.
Ask yourself: why didn't the prosecution charge Trump with violating 17-152, and avoid this issue? Could it be because they didn't think they would win such a charge?
- shadowgovt 2y ago> They presented three possible crimes to the jury, but didn't even require them to declare that he had committed any of those crimes The crime he was convicted of requires proof he falsified documents to attempt to commit those other crimes, not that he succeeded. He doesn't have to be guilty of another crime to be guilty of felony record falsification in attempt to commit another crime. And the statute doesn't require the jury to agree on what crime was attempted. That's a finding of fact left to the jury, but each juror may choose which scenario is most likely; you can't play the scenarios off each other as reasonable doubt if at least one of them is what happened in each juror's individual best judgment.