Judge Merchan's Letter to Trump Trial Lawyers Raises Eyebrows

[Procrustes Stretched]

Doesn't matter. The post was made on an official NY state account

omfg!

 

[struth]

That's not proof.

You were calling for a mistrial based on the post.

WW

Sure it’s evidence. Yes if true it’s grounds for a mistrial

A jury had to be impartial. That would violate a defendant’s due process rights

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Never heard Alex Jones.

As far as the rest, i don’t really look at a news station as believe or not, I generally look to them simply reporting the news, like this news about the this cousin of a juror.

Nobody can believe you. Look what you posted

"The post was made on an official NY state account"

 

[Blaster]

A jury had to be impartial.

It wasn't.

 

[struth]

From the poster.

WW

View attachment 959887

View attachment 959888

Hahaha yeah…amazing how you got that screen shot from an account restricted

Haha

 

[WEATHER53]

That's not proof.

You were calling for a mistrial based on the post.

I raise unicorns on a secret base on the back side of the moon. Is that evidence that I actually raise unicorns on the moon?

WW

It’s not hearsay
It’s a direct and attributed first hand commentary
Just kidding doesn’t wash that away And it was a unlawful statement to make to begin with if bogus and worse because it’s true
We go with the comment until Proven otherwise

 

[struth]

Nobody can believe you. Look what you posted

"The post was made on an official NY state account"

What??

 

[struth]

It wasn't.

Beginning to look like that. Certainly even had this judge concerned

 

[struth]

Nope. The judge was covering bases for faux appeals. There is no cousin of a juror posting on FB.

Didn't you claim he posted on a NY government site? LOL

How do you know? The judge didn’t even know, hence why he raised the concerns

 

[Rogue AI]

View attachment 959555

belongs to a Facebook group of Trump supporters???

Opposition often monitors groups they don't support. Some folks join just to troll. SPLC has been doing it for decades for groups they've labeled, fairly or not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sure it’s evidence. Yes if true it’s grounds for a mistrial

A jury had to be impartial. That would violate a defendant’s due process rights

Even if true, which none of it is, Telling somebody what you think a verdict will be is not being impartial. LOL


The stench of desperation coming from you people is overwhelming.

Trump is a convicted felon. You people are not legal scholars. You people are desperate followers in a cult-of-personality

I suggest everyone here wear -- gulp -- a mask!

 

[struth]

Even if true, which none of it is, Telling somebody what you think a verdict will be is not being impartial. LOL


The stench of desperation coming from you people is overwhelming.

Trump is a convicted felon. You people are not legal scholars. You people are desperate followers in a cult-of-personality

I suggest everyone here wear -- gulp -- a mask!

Correct, coming to a verdict before the evidence is in is not being impartial…hence a mistrial.

Nobody really expected a fair trial in NYC.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How do you know? The judge didn’t even know, hence why he raised the concerns

The judge alerted both sides to a social media post. The judge did not express concern in the way you imply.

Nobody can believe you. Look what you posted

"The post was made on an official NY state account"

 

[struth]

The judge alerted both sides to a social media post. The judge did not express concern in the way you imply.

Nobody can believe you. Look what you posted

"The post was made on an official NY state account"

Correct the judge had concerns. So how do you know more then the judge???

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Correct, coming to a verdict before the evidence is in is not being impartial…hence a mistrial.

The post claims shit, but a verdict had not been reached yet. so it's bullshit -- the claim in the post. And if it were weirdly rue, a juror expressing an opinion? That's no shit for a mistrial LOL

Mistrial? On what?

Trump is guilty. We all know it.

The stench of desperation coming out of Magadonia is nauseating.

The OP's own link -- the part some of you are allergic to:

Attorney Neama Rahmani told Newsweek Friday that defense lawyers typically can't use jury conversation as a reason for seeking a new trial.

"Jury deliberations are sacred, and the defense usually can't use juror discussions as a basis for a new trial or to appeal, even if the jurors misunderstood the facts or the law," Rahmani said via email.

"One exception, however, is if outside influences are brought into the jury deliberation room," he added. "That may be a basis for a new trial."

Rahmani added: "The burden for a new trial is high, though. The defense must show both an improper outside influence and prejudice."
"A stray comment on social media is not enough for a new trial," he wrote.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Correct the judge had concerns. So how do you know more then the judge???

"Justice Juan Merchan informed prosecutors and Donald Trump’s attorneys on Friday about a newly discovered post on the New York court system’s Facebook page from a user who claimed to be the cousin of a juror."

The judge was not alarmed that something was rotten. He merely did what you people accuse him of not doing -- his job and being fair and open.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Correct the judge had concerns. So how do you know more then the judge???

"Merchan, who presided over Trump’s recently concluded hush money trial, did not indicate whether the post — which is no longer visible on Facebook — appeared legitimate or may have been the result of a prank. Media efforts to locate the poster indicated that the post likely came from an account associated with someone who appears to be a regular troll of the New York court system’s social media pages.

Merchan’s decision to alert lawyers in a brief letter on Friday afternoon quickly riled up some commentators on the right, who seized on the message as a sign that Trump’s conviction in the hush money case was somehow tainted." -- previous politico link


letter: read it

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v%20DJT%206-7-24%20Letter%20to%20Parties.pdf

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hahaha yeah…amazing how you got that screen shot from an account restricted

Haha

It's restricted now, it wasn't when the screen shots were taken.

They are news reports on the matter.

WW

 

[struth]

It's restricted now, it wasn't when the screen shots were taken.

They are news reports on the matter.

WW

Then why does it say restricted in the screen shot???

 

[WorldWatcher]

Then why does it say restricted in the screen shot???

Because they are two different screen shots taken as different times.

One is obviously from a cell phone, one is from a computer.

WW