Should Trump Trial Go Direct To Supreme Court?

[Harpy Eagle]

the trial the verdict ect .. has national implications for the election .. so the SC has a powerful reason to rule on it ..

It is not in their jurisdiction unless it is argued the very laws of NY are unconstitutional.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump had a 5% chance of getting a fair trail in New York and he lost. (95% voted Biden)

Sure your happy with the verdict and your political bias is gratified .. it makes perfect sense.

The Democrat Party law-fare was a success, enjoy and congratulations..

Only if you believe that people cannot set aside their political views and be honest as a juror.

And the only reason for one to believe that is because it is true of them and they assume everyone else is the same

 

[Care4all]

Trump had a 5% chance of getting a fair trail in New York and he lost. (95% voted Biden)

Sure your happy with the verdict and your political bias is gratified .. it makes perfect sense.

The Democrat Party law-fare was a success, enjoy and congratulations..

I so totally disagree! I've served in a few criminal case juries in my lifetime, and it is serious business....because each juror knows they have someone's livelihood and life in their hands.... All you want to do....and pray you do, is to get things right!

It's a huge huge huge responsibility! You want the guilty to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and do NOT want a bad jury verdict on your shoulders, you also don't want to convict an innocent person, at the same time you don't want a guilty person set free!

You just have no idea how stressful, yet extremely important, jury duty is to the normal jurist in a criminal trial!

Jurists are citizens, with every day lives and families....they know our entire justice system and our Nation built on laws, Not men, fails, if they don't take their jury duty seriously.

Political party of a jurist, or defendant, matters naught!

Two of the jurists were likely Trumpers, one with Truth Social as their primary news source and one with Fox News. They still found him guilty on the falsifying business records, beyond a reasonable doubt.

They followed their duty as jurists.

If this law in this trial was or was not constitutional is NOT for the jurists to determine....that's higher judges job to determine such, Not theirs!

You guys should leave them alone!

 

[Care4all]

the trial the verdict ect .. has national implications for the election .. so the SC has a powerful reason to rule on it ..

it has to make it through to the state supreme court first. For all we know the State SC may rule in Trump's favor, or an appellate court may....

There is no reason for the supreme court to step in before the State Courts who according to the constitution, is in their hands. There is plenty of time.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

yes it should .. and there's a good chance it will .

Can any of you Jadrools explain exactly what the legal and constitutional mechanism is for the case to leap from the NY trial court right to the SCOTUS

 

[Leo123]

You have no clue how the system works?

Stop commenting!

By the looks of the trial, the system is broken.

 

[Leo123]

I so totally disagree! I've served in a few criminal case juries in my lifetime, and it is serious business....because each juror knows they have someone's livelihood and life in their hands.... All you want to do....and pray you do, is to get things right!

It's a huge huge huge responsibility! You want the guilty to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and do NOT want a bad jury verdict on your shoulders, you also don't want to convict an innocent person, at the same time you don't want a guilty person set free!

You just have no idea how stressful, yet extremely important, jury duty is to the normal jurist in a criminal trial!

Jurists are citizens, with every day lives and families....they know our entire justice system and our Nation built on laws, Not men, fails, if they don't take their jury duty seriously.

Political party of a jurist, or defendant, matters naught!

Two of the jurists were likely Trumpers, one with Truth Social as their primary news source and one with Fox News. They still found him guilty on the falsifying business records, beyond a reasonable doubt.

They followed their duty as jurists.

If this law in this trial was or was not constitutional is NOT for the jurists to determine....that's higher judges job to determine such, Not theirs!

You guys should leave them alone!

I also served on a jury and I can tell you the judge insisted on ONE UNANIMOUS verdict for ONE charge. Marchan needs to be reversed and charged with a violation of Constitutional rights of a defendant.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I also served on a jury and I can tell you the judge insisted on ONE UNANIMOUS verdict for ONE charge. Marchan needs to be reversed and charged with a violation of Constitutional rights of a defendant.

WHAT??!!

 

[Lisa558]

it has to make it through to the state supreme court first. For all we know the State SC may rule in Trump's favor, or an appellate court may....

There is no reason for the supreme court to step in before the State Courts who according to the constitution, is in their hands. There is plenty of time.

There is NOT plenty of time. There is an election going on, and if Trump‘s constituional rights were violated in order to falsely brand him “a convicted criminal,” then voters need to know that before casting their vote.

 

[Polishprince]

Can any of you Jadrools explain exactly what the legal and constitutional mechanism is for the case to leap from the NY trial court right to the SCOTUS

Whenever you have an extraordinary situation which affects a Presidential election, the precedent is that the SCOTUS takes up the case (Bush v Gore, 2000). This is just as critical.

 

[Leo123]

There is NOT plenty of time. There is an election going on, and if Trump‘s constituional rights were violated in order to falsely brand him “a convicted criminal,” then voters need to know that before casting their vote.

Yep, they fasttracked the trial and will drag their feet dragging Trump through the NY appeal process. However, so far this conviction has not moved the needle very much for Joe Biden or against Donald Trump.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Only if you believe that people cannot set aside their political views and be honest as a juror.

And the only reason for one to believe that is because it is true of them and they assume everyone else is the same

Your hate for Trump is obvious and unyielding in my opinion, your dislike for opposing points of views is likewise.

Your welcome to imagine that you could be fair and balanced as a juror but the odds are slim to none judging by your consistent postings.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

By the looks of the trial, the system is broken.

Nope. Thought is was a great trial. Great lesson for people who knew nothing about how teh system really works.

No man is above the law.

I long ago went on record stating a guilty conviction is not demanded. It's enough that the disgusting degenerate has been held to not be above the law. He's been prosecuted.

I remember Mafia bosses receiving not guilty verdicts. Didn't make them reputable citizens.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your hate for Trump is obvious and unyielding in my opinion, your dislike for opposing points of views is likewise.

Your welcome to imagine that you could be fair and balanced as a juror but the odds are slim to none judging by your consistent postings.

Trump's hatred for over half of America has been noted.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Your hate for Trump is obvious and unyielding in my opinion, your dislike for opposing points of views is likewise.

Your welcome to imagine that you could be fair and balanced as a juror but the odds are slim to none judging by your consistent postings.

So, now the old "I am rubber and you are glue" routine.

How very predictable

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I also served on a jury and I can tell you the judge insisted on ONE UNANIMOUS verdict for ONE charge. Marchan needs to be reversed and charged with a violation of Constitutional rights of a defendant.

No . Stop misrepresenting what the Judge's jury instructions were.

"Justice Merchan tells the jurors that it is not his responsibility to judge the evidence in the case. “It is yours,” he says. “You are the judges of the facts, and you are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.”"

Trump Hush $$$ Trial Jury Instructions - Post-Summation Instructions - Facts Here

Offering up multiple links to Judge Merchan's instructions to the jury. Why? So we all can find an easy link to facts that are sure to be misrepresented (by more than one side), misconstrued, misunderstood, and misinterpreted...

www.usmessageboard.com

Page | 1 Post-Summation Instructions

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

You people and Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial

Posts misrepresent New York judge’s instructions to jury in Trump hush money trial

As jury deliberations began Wednesday in Trump’s trial, social media users spread false information about Merchan’s instructions to the seven men and five women who will determine the outcome in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

apnews.com

The judge told the jury that to convict Trump on any given charge, they will have to find unanimously — that is, all 12 jurors must agree — that the former president created a fraudulent entry in his company’s records or caused someone else to do so, and that he did so with the intent of committing or concealing a crime.

Prosecutors say the crime Trump committed or hid is a violation of a New York election law making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

 

[Lumpy 1]

I so totally disagree! I've served in a few criminal case juries in my lifetime, and it is serious business....because each juror knows they have someone's livelihood and life in their hands.... All you want to do....and pray you do, is to get things right!

It's a huge huge huge responsibility! You want the guilty to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and do NOT want a bad jury verdict on your shoulders, you also don't want to convict an innocent person, at the same time you don't want a guilty person set free!

You just have no idea how stressful, yet extremely important, jury duty is to the normal jurist in a criminal trial!

Jurists are citizens, with every day lives and families....they know our entire justice system and our Nation built on laws, Not men, fails, if they don't take their jury duty seriously.

Political party of a jurist, or defendant, matters naught!

Two of the jurists were likely Trumpers, one with Truth Social as their primary news source and one with Fox News. They still found him guilty on the falsifying business records, beyond a reasonable doubt.

They followed their duty as jurists.

If this law in this trial was or was not constitutional is NOT for the jurists to determine....that's higher judges job to determine such, Not theirs!

You guys should leave them alone!

This case is all about politics, the biases are obvious as are your attempts to put lipstick on a donkey.

 

[Leo123]

Nope. Thought is was a great trial. Great lesson for people who knew nothing about how teh system really works.

No man is above the law.

I long ago went on record stating a guilty conviction is not demanded. It's enough that the disgusting degenerate has been held to not be above the law. He's been prosecuted.

I remember Mafia bosses receiving not guilty verdicts. Didn't make them reputable citizens.

Trump is not below the law either, as Marchan and Bragg have unconstitutionally put him.

 

[Lumpy 1]

So, now the old "I am rubber and you are glue" routine.

How very predictable.

Yup .. you were too obvious

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I also served on a jury and I can tell you the judge insisted on ONE UNANIMOUS verdict for ONE charge. Marchan needs to be reversed and charged with a violation of Constitutional rights of a defendant.

Trump is not below the law either, as Marchan and Bragg have unconstitutionally put him.

stop whining