Indecision 2024

[lpm]

The prosecution presented plenty of corroborating evidence throughout.

[Stranger Mouse]

I thought this was potentially a rather important instruction the judge gave to the jurors. As paraphrased by the BBC in this live thread at 15:45. I hope the prosecutors have presented suitable belt and braces to handle it. Hopefully in explicit fashion.

Under the law, Michael Cohen is considered an accomplice because he participated in some of the crimes alleged here in this trial.

While the jury can consider his testimony, there is a specific instruction at play.

The judge tells them that “you may not convict a defendant solely upon his testimony" unless they find it is corroborated by other evidence.

From all accounts the prosecution closing argument summarising how to approach the evidence was excellent

And these questions from the jury imply they were paying attention https://x.com/klasfeldreports/status/17 ... 28987?s=61

[lpm]

There's a lot of tea leaf reading in this jury watching stage.

Pretty sure it's all pointless. A couple of jurors could well deliver a hung jury, no matter what evidence they're currently studying.

[dyqik]

It does seem insane that in New York, the jury aren't allowed transcripts of testimony or a written copy of the jury instructions (which lay out the applicable law).

[jimbob]

It does seem insane that in New York, the jury aren't allowed transcripts of testimony or a written copy of the jury instructions (which lay out the applicable law).

That is stupid

[IvanV]

It does seem insane that in New York, the jury aren't allowed transcripts of testimony or a written copy of the jury instructions (which lay out the applicable law).

When such counterproductive rules persist, you wonder who it advantages and how they are protecting it. My guess would be some arcane advantage to lawyers, who are thus better enabled to weave their black arts, lawyers typically having large influence on legislatures. We see something similar in Britain where lawyers specialising in "reputation protection" impede the sensible reform of libel laws, so that they can continue earning large fees from their disreputable, but very rich, clients.

[Woodchopper]

It does seem insane that in New York, the jury aren't allowed transcripts of testimony or a written copy of the jury instructions (which lay out the applicable law).

When such counterproductive rules persist, you wonder who it advantages and how they are protecting it. My guess would be some arcane advantage to lawyers, who are thus better enabled to weave their black arts, lawyers typically having large influence on legislatures. We see something similar in Britain where lawyers specialising in "reputation protection" impede the sensible reform of libel laws, so that they can continue earning large fees from their disreputable, but very rich, clients.

As far as I know, the rationale for the lack of written instructions is that the Jury shouldn't try to interpret the law themselves. Instead, the jury should ask the judge to clarify all the legal issues for them. The assumption is that if the jury was given a written text they'd start to debate what the words mean. However, as they lack legal training they would probably be mistaken.

It seems to resemble reformation debates between Protestantism (let the people interpret the text themselves) and Catholicism (only the priest can interpret the bible).

[IvanV]

It does seem insane that in New York, the jury aren't allowed transcripts of testimony or a written copy of the jury instructions (which lay out the applicable law).

When such counterproductive rules persist, you wonder who it advantages and how they are protecting it. My guess would be some arcane advantage to lawyers, who are thus better enabled to weave their black arts, lawyers typically having large influence on legislatures. We see something similar in Britain where lawyers specialising in "reputation protection" impede the sensible reform of libel laws, so that they can continue earning large fees from their disreputable, but very rich, clients.

As far as I know, the rationale for the lack of written instructions is that the Jury shouldn't try to interpret the law themselves. Instead, the jury should ask the judge to clarify all the legal issues for them. The assumption is that if the jury was given a written text they'd start to debate what the words mean. However, as they lack legal training they would probably be mistaken.

It seems to resemble reformation debates between Protestantism (let the people interpret the text themselves) and Catholicism (only the priest can interpret the bible).

That sounds like an excuse, and usually such things are justified with excuses that deflect attention from the real reasons.

The judge's instructions are not the law, they are the judge's interpretation of the law. It is indeed for the jury to apply and interpret those instructions. That is not interpreting the law, it is using the interpretation given to them, which is their job. Moreover, those instructions present a checklist of items the jury need to satisfy themselves of to come to a verdict on a charge. It is, in effect, a task list. Satisfy yourself of these (eg) 5 things, and then the verdict is guilty. And in case there are 34 charges. Whilst there are plenty that have the same decision process, there come in several distinctive types with different decision processes. With such a long task list, not to have an aide memoire written down as to what you have to do...

What goes on? Does the jury repeatedly send messages out of the jury room to asks the judge, remind us what the decision tree on charge 23 is, different people in this room have different memories of it and we can't agree. Now remind us about charge 27. More likely they go, oh sod this, we'll just guess based on our emotions and overall impressions. And that's what lawyers like, because then they can use their theatrical skills to influence the jury in their preferred direction. And charge their rich client accordingly for getting the result that client wants. That's why I'd think the real reason is because lawyers like it as they can earn more money.

[dyqik]

The American Bar Association states that best practice is to give the jury written copies of their instructions, and most states and the Federal courts do do that.

Most also give written transcripts, again including Federal courts.

[IvanV]

And so in fact there has been a ridiculous performance of the jury sending out requests to have various bits of evidence transcript and judicial instructions read out to them, to be reminded what they say. And what happens is someone reads these things back to them.

Doubtless someone gets wages paid to do that.

[headshot]

Someone who worked on The Apprentice has spoken up about some of the behind the scenes shenanigans and it’s not pretty…

https://slate.com/culture/2024/05/donal ... ntice.html

“I think Kwame [Jackson] would be a great addition to the organization,” Kepcher says to Trump, who winces while his head bobs around in reaction to what he is hearing and clearly resisting…

…“Yeah,” he says to no one in particular, “but, I mean, would America buy a n— winning?”

Kepcher’s pale skin goes bright red. I turn my gaze toward Trump. He continues to wince. He is serious, and he is adamant about not hiring Jackson.

[Stranger Mouse]

The jury has a verdict!!!!!

ETA I’m betting mostly or completely guilty and I am never wrong apart from when I am

[FlammableFlower]

On tenterhooks now

[lpm]

It's not going to be Not Guilty.

The fear was tge high chance of Hung.

[Stranger Mouse]

Guilty on first charge. Rest being recited now.

ETA Guilty on all 34 accounts

[monkey]

Waaaay!

[lpm]

BOOM!!!

[tenchboy]

BOOM!!!

CLANG CLANG Go the Jail Guitar Doors

[tenchboy]

2345 GuiltyGuiltyguilty guilty

[dyqik]

Trump's immediate response to 34 guilty verdicts won't help his sentencing.

https://x.com/MollyJongFast/status/1796286117890621893

[Stranger Mouse]

Guilty on all 34

[lpm]

Sentencing 10 am on July 11th.

[lpm]

"I am a very innocent man."

[dyqik]

Sentencing 10 am on July 11th.

Shame it couldn't be July 3rd, to really make that weekend go with a bang.

[dyqik]

That also means that Trump will have to do the first debate without knowing if he'll be in jail for the second one.