> He specifically says he "will hold him accountable" but does not even entertain the idea that the facts may show Trump is not guilty. In fact, not once did he

> He specifically says he "will hold him accountable" but does not even entertain the idea that the facts may show Trump is not guilty. In fact, not once did he stated that the facts may end up indicating Trump is not guilty. The first sentiment expressed by Bragg in that interview is in response to a direct question, that he would be ready to inherit the case from Vance because he has experience in pursuing Trump, and he is "ready to go wherever the facts take [him]". He reiterates several times the idea he will follow the facts where they lead, and he notes he is speaking carefully because he does not want to be accused of pre-judging the case by Trump. He does note that he has a history of pursuing Trump also in response to a direct question. When I listen to Bragg saying he will follow the facts, juxtaposed with your statement that he "does not even entertain the idea that the facts may show Trump is not guilty.", I have to ask: what do you think Bragg means when he says he is "ready to go wherever the facts take me". Doesn't that imply he is open to the facts taking him to where Trump is not guilty? > You were simply incorrect in trying to split a single charge/crime into 2. Okay well I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't mean I didn't watch the trials and haven't been following. What I was trying to clumsily express was the point from the article you linked: "The third “unlawful” action could be violating the Federal Election Campaign Act, meaning Cohen’s payment to Daniels was a contribution to Trump’s campaign that exceeded the legal limit—which Cohen already pleaded guilty to." > No, federal election crimes are not prosecutable by state/local courts. Supreme court has ruled on this many times. But he did not prosecute a federal crime. I don't know how you keep coming back to that. What he prosecuted was a state crime, which as an element includes an intent to commit another crime, which may or may not be a federal crime. Prosecuting an intent to commit a crime is not prosecuting a crime. > The judge should have pointed out this problem in the case initially, but instead let the case go ahead with Bragg citing violation of federal campaign laws as a matter of fact for the case. Because it's not actually a problem. You keep overstating what happened. Bragg did not have to cite violation of any other laws. He had to show intent to violate a law. Intent is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It was the jury who found Trump's intent to be a matter of fact. > As such, there is a very strong case of overturning the case, possibly with reversible error cited given that the judge allowed the case to go forward through misapplication of state law by allowing prosecution to cite federal campaign law. I mean, I guess we will see :shrug:. On the other hand it might be perfectly fine, and the appeals court will tell us. > The problem with the jury not agreeing with what the secondary crime (hidden by record falsification) is that it adds ambiguity to the facts of the case and makes the case for appeal much stronger. I don't see that as a real problem. > also possibly indicates the jury was not actually unanimous on the intent requirement for the felony charge No, the jury was in fact unambiguously unanimous on the intent requirement. Each and every one of them was asked if they agreed with the verdict as read, and every one agreed. That's the end of discussion on that matter. > Do you think it's okay if a jury does not get sufficient instruction on how to interpret the relevant laws and apply facts for the case? As someone who often has to give clear instructions to people (in the case of proctoring exams) I know there is no set of words you can say to 12 people that will be understood by all of them in the same exact way. For this reason, I realize that dialog and clarification are necessary for resolving misunderstandings, and that's exactly what the process allowed for at trial. > The jury had to ask multiple times for clarification on the jury instructions. They specifically had to ask the judge to reread the instructions multiple times because they were not given a written copy of the instructions! So? As I was listening live, I heard trial lawyers predicting this would happen on the basis that it always happens. As I said, people need clarification no matter how clear you (think you) are. The fact they asked for clarification should be evidence that everything was clear in the end. Because they were asked by the judge if everything was clear, and they answered in the affirmative. You are here asking me to not trust the jury because you feel the instructions were unclear, but you weren't even there. > Ask yourself, if you had just sat on the jury for such a long trial and the judge finally read out a 55-page jury instruction, would you recall all the instructions required for your job? No, but I would have asked for clarification until I was clear, exactly as the jury did. Regardless, this is just the law in NY, and in fact had they been given a copy of the instructions, that would have been grounds for an appeal: The prohibition against jurors being provided with a copy of the written legal instructions stems from a 1987 decision by the New York Court of Appeals — the state’s highest court — in a case called People v. Owens, which involved a drug sale. The court found that “the distribution of written instructions to the jury is not expressly authorized by law, and error in such submissions cannot be deemed harmless,” meaning that providing the instructions would result in a conviction being overturned. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/written-jury-instructions-trump-judge.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/30/nyregion/written-jury-ins... Personally I would give the jury a copy. But then again I can see the downside, as it would leave them interpreting a document to find clarification rather than interacting with the judge. I can see the merit on forcing them to ask the judge, because ultimately he is the expert, not the document, which no matter how well-intentioned and crafted, probably contains some bugs. So its better to have him be the authority rather than the instructions he put together. Also clears things up for appeal, because the judge can ask them if they are clear on the instructions, and they can answer in the affirmative or not, so we don't have to wonder if they were unclear about things after the fact. They are each on record under oath saying they are clear about the instructions, what more do you want?