5 ms·

Just one example of why this might be overturned. Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). In this case

Just one example of why this might be overturned. Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). In this case the judge let the prosecution go last. Why is this a problem? The prosecution did not reveal the second crime (they gave a set of possible crimes) needed to elevate the misdemeanour to a felony, until they spoke at the end. So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. And the set of those laws were only revealed to the jury at the last moment. Literally denying the defence a legal opportunity to respond to the laws that the defendant was alleged to have broken. Breaking law A = misdemeanour Breaking law A + another law = Felony Prosecution never revealed the other law Trump was alleged to have broken until closing arguments. Trial is about breaking law A. But closing arguments are about breaking law A in combination with another law. The prosecution gave a set of possible other laws at closing arguments, in which they went last. The judge instructed the jury that they can individually select which other law they think Trump broke. How can this possibly be a fair trail process, when you can defend yourself for breaking law A, but get punished for breaking laws A + X. In which X is not revealed to you during the proceedings of the trail, but only to the jury at the last moment.

ModernMech 2y ago
> Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury. Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know. Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second: After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant. https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal_court_guide.pdf https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal... So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation. > So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states: That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them. It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense. Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously. What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy. We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised? "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged. The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump. As far as the judge: The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias" How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges. His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail. How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial? >"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so" How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election? Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ? How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented. Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel. Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers. The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.
jcranmer 2y ago
> Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). This is actually the complete opposite of the truth. Almost always, the side who has the absolute last word to the jury is the side that bears the burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff (or government in a criminal trial). Usually this manifests as plaintiff goes first, then defendant, then plaintiff gets a rebuttal argument.
- dukeofdoom 2y ago
  You're correct. But in this case, because the second crime was the reason for the felony charge, and revealed in the closing arguments. The only way it could be have been responded to, is if the judge allowed to defence to go last. This will be one of the contentions in any appeal.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    So the NY criminal dockets are sufficiently closed down that I can't find the defense's briefing papers on its motions. But given that some of the public orders do castigate that defense for trying to reraise the same "these charges are complete bullshit" too many times, that the defense helped prepare the jury instructions (which specifically include mention of the second crime), and the fact that the underlying second crime has been heavily reported on news media since the charges were first brought, I find it hard to believe that the first opportunity the defense could have known about the second crime was in closing arguments. Also, I don't see in the transcript of the closing arguments any objections defense raised to the second crime only being brought up then, so even if it were true, it can't be raised in appeal.
    - dukeofdoom 2y ago
      So what was the second crime?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

ModernMech 2y ago

> Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury. Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know. Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second: After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant. https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal_court_guide.pdf https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal... So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation. > So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken. No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states: That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof. INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them. It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense. Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously. What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy. We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.

dukeofdoom 2y ago
How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised? "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged. The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump. As far as the judge: The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias" How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges. His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail. How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial? >"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so" How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election? Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ? How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented. Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel. Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers. The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.

jcranmer 2y ago

> Typically (almost always) the defence has the last word to the jury. (presumption of innocence). This is actually the complete opposite of the truth. Almost always, the side who has the absolute last word to the jury is the side that bears the burden of proof, i.e., the plaintiff (or government in a criminal trial). Usually this manifests as plaintiff goes first, then defendant, then plaintiff gets a rebuttal argument.

dukeofdoom 2y ago
You're correct. But in this case, because the second crime was the reason for the felony charge, and revealed in the closing arguments. The only way it could be have been responded to, is if the judge allowed to defence to go last. This will be one of the contentions in any appeal.
- jcranmer 2y ago
  So the NY criminal dockets are sufficiently closed down that I can't find the defense's briefing papers on its motions. But given that some of the public orders do castigate that defense for trying to reraise the same "these charges are complete bullshit" too many times, that the defense helped prepare the jury instructions (which specifically include mention of the second crime), and the fact that the underlying second crime has been heavily reported on news media since the charges were first brought, I find it hard to believe that the first opportunity the defense could have known about the second crime was in closing arguments. Also, I don't see in the transcript of the closing arguments any objections defense raised to the second crime only being brought up then, so even if it were true, it can't be raised in appeal.
  - dukeofdoom 2y ago
    So what was the second crime?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]