What Is A "Jury of your peers"?

[Skylar]

And the grand juries voted to indict.

In WEATHER53 's very tenderized brain, everyone BUT the orange slob is corrupt.

So that includes the juries.

Weather never read the jury instructions. Magites aren't really prone to original research. They don't really have opinions, as we understand them. They have talking points.....which they neither question, think about much, or require evidence for.

Thus, all the babble about jury instructions they've never ready, legal definitions they didn't know, and constitutional processes they don't understand.

Or, in the MAGA. bubble, really need to. They just need to repeat.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Weather never read the jury instructions. Magites aren't really prone to original research. They don't really have opinions, as we understand them. They have talking points.....which they neither question, think about much, or require evidence for.

Thus, all the babble about jury instructions they've never ready, legal definitions they didn't know, and constitutional processes they don't understand.

Or, in the MAGA. bubble, really need to. They just need to repeat.

Yep. Because they are performing for an audience of two: themselves and the orange pile.

 

[Independent thinker]

No dumb f he is saying that over a third of New Yorkers are Trump supporters. The jury pool is chosen from these voters. Trumps lawyers got to choose half the jurors and they could not get one to Aquitaine. Trump is guilty as hell and your b ass whines like the loser you and Trump are. Funny how all you dumb ass right Wingers can run your mouth 24. 7 but can never win a court case. Funny how when it takes actual evidence yall fail every time. Hilarious

If the jurors were all lefties then Trump got to choose lefties.

 

[Independent thinker]

Keep on clinging, loser! LOL

Well, Trump is still ahead in every single swing state. He will be your next president.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If the jurors were all lefties then Trump got to choose lefties.

But anyone who has read anything at all about this knows they were not all leftists.

Do you ever read ANYTHING about topics before commenting? Come on, man.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, Trump is still ahead in every single swing state. He will be your next president.

Haha, the cultists' Alamo

When all the lies fail... to the Alamo they go...

 

[Independent thinker]

Nope. They were overwhelmingly liberal, and Trump-haters. That doesn’t qualify as an impartial jury. And of course the “judge” was horribly biased.

There is no question this miscarriage of justice will be overturned. The only questions are:

1. If the NY appeals court appeals it, will they drag it out until after the election to allow Dems to campaign on the false “convicted felon” nonsense?

2. if the NY appeals court is also too biased to do its job and this goes to the SCOTUS, then same question: Will they get it in time to overturn the verdict?

All good questions. Here are my answers:

The NY appeals court is in a bit of a pickle. Of course they are fine with getting Trump but they also need to show that they themselves uphold the law and that is going to be extremely difficult for them to try figuring out a way to get Trump without making themselves look partisan, an almost impossible task with the entire country watching them closely. They don't want the Supreme Court ultimately overruling them. Timing is the bigger question.

If they uphold the original verdict and it goes to the SC I say there is absolutely no way we get a decision before the election.

 

[Dekster]

So, if you are saying Trump is guilty and is a criminal, then why wasn't he judged by a jury of his peers?

He was judged by democrats. Same difference.

 

[Independent thinker]

Let me guess: Hunter will get a Jury of his Peers and they will all be Biden loving Liberals and say Hunter is innocent.

LET ME JUST GUESS!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not so sure. I strongly suspect that Hunter will be thrown under the bus in order to make it appear the Trump cases are legitimate and unbiased. Nothing is more important than getting Trump, including Biden's son.

 

[Dekster]

Here's an solid definition from the Cornell Law School:

peer

www.law.cornell.edu

One used pretty much everywhere.




Its a nonsense standard. You'll find that most of the outrage on 'legal violations' and 'constitutional violations' by the MAGA crowd is just them not understanding how the law works.

Like when Trump insisted that the gag order prevented him from testifying. Just meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense

Yawns.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

All good questions. Here are my answers:

The NY appeals court is in a bit of a pickle. Of course they are fine with getting Trump but they also need to show that they themselves uphold the law and that is going to be extremely difficult for them to try figuring out a way to get Trump without making themselves look partisan, an almost impossible task with the entire country watching them closely. They don't want the Supreme Court ultimately overruling them. Timing is the bigger question.

If they uphold the original verdict and it goes to the SC I say there is absolutely no way we get a decision before the election.

As of this moment the appeals court has no reason whatsoever to hear Trump's appeal. His own defense team has not even attempted to publicly describe a single legit basis for an appeal to be heard.

 

[Skylar]

All good questions. Here are my answers:

The NY appeals court is in a bit of a pickle. Of course they are fine with getting Trump but they also need to show that they themselves uphold the law and that is going to be extremely difficult for them to try figuring out a way to get Trump without making themselves look partisan, an almost impossible task with the entire country watching them closely. They don't want the Supreme Court ultimately overruling them. Timing is the bigger question.

It really isn't. The issues that Trump and his cronies are trying to raise about the suitability of the charges have already been adjudicated. The charges that Trump was convicted of were found to be appropriate, legal and constitutional before the trial.

All they have to do is nothing. Especially when Trump seems intent on rehashing issues that were settled before a single juror was seated, rather than focusing on any specific error made during the trial.

If they uphold the original verdict and it goes to the SC I say there is absolutely no way we get a decision before the election.

There's little chance that Trump will exhaust his state appeals before the election. And little chance the Supreme Court would even consider an appeal until the State appeals were exhausted.

 

[Skylar]

Yawns.

Yeah, legal definitions are so boring. Making up nonsense based on your personal opinion must be so much more entertaining.

 

[Skylar]

I'm not so sure. I strongly suspect that Hunter will be thrown under the bus in order to make it appear the Trump cases are legitimate and unbiased. Nothing is more important than getting Trump, including Biden's son.

So Hunter not being shielded from the law is evidence of a conspiracy against Trump?

I thought Hunter being shielded from the law was evidence of a conspiracy against Trump.

Any outcome, I guess, to be a victim.

 

[evenflow1969]

If the jurors were all lefties then Trump got to choose lefties.

Lol, not how that shit works. There shortbus. The jury pool is pulled at random. 37 percent were likely Trump supporters. Mean while 47 percent of New York are repugs. Ya, lost. Just like all those Jan 6 losers. KJust like all the other felons Trump hangs out with. We win in court while you dumb asses just run your mouths. Ya never have actual evidence to back anything up.

 

[Lisa558]

They had to unanimously conclude hat he committed the crime of falsifying business records. Those were the judges instructions. They also had to unanimously conclude that Trump had tried to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

They did both unanimously. Resulting in 34 felony convictions.

Your fantasies that they weren't impartial are merely your imagination. And don't form the basis of any legal challenge to Trump's conviction.



And the criminal theory was upheld by the judge, the state appeals court, and the federal courts, all rejecting Trump's attempt to dismiss the charges.

Meaning that an appeal based on a rejection of the criminal theory is quite unlikely. Its already been adjudicated in the dismissal hearings and their appeals. State and Federal. And found to be legally and constitutionally valid.

You'll need something new from the trial. And you don't have it.

And falsifying business records is a MISDEMEANOR, and long expired.

The biased DA figured out some convoluted, obscure way to resurrect the dead misdemeanor and turn it into a felony - splitting it up it 34 felonies, all over the same thing - because he claimed Trump intended to commit another crime.

So what other crime did the jury find Trump intended that made this a felony? You can’t have 12 people disagreeing with what his intended crime was, and then claim they’re unanimous.

This amount of pretzel-twisting tells you how unprovable this case was. The judge decided he wanted a guilty verdict, and then twisted and spun in order to fit a square peg into a round hole.

In the meantime, Biden sits there after allowing his family members to become multimillionaires by trading on his name, and gets away with stealing and sharing classified info.

 

[Skylar]

And falsifying business records is a MISDEMEANOR, and long expired.

They can be elevated to a felony if they were in done with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime. Which the jury found unanimously that Trump did.

The biased DA figured out some convoluted, obscure way to resurrect the dead misdemeanor and turn it into a felony - splitting it up it 34 felonies, all over the same thing - because he claimed Trump intended to commit another crime.

It wasn't that obscure. The enhancement is right there in 175.10.

So what other crime did the jury find Trump intended that made this a felony? You can’t have 12 people disagreeing with what his intended crime was, and then claim they’re unanimous.

Actually you can. 175.10 doesn't specify which crime the falsification of records was intended to commit, aid or conceal. Only that another crime was intended.

It isn't necessary to agree on which crime. ANY crime will do to meet the enhancement standards of 175.10. All the jury had to agree was that the falsification had been intended to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

And they did. Unanimously.

 

[pknopp]

We need proof at least by the preponderance of the evidence.
And in serious matters, by the testimony of more than one witness.

Your impartiality claim, needs to be tested the same as the testimony of a witness needs to be tested.

Thought more on what you said. It's a valid point but here is my issue.

It seems to me that both sides try and pick jurors that think a certain way.

There has to be a better way.

 

[Lisa558]

They can be elevated to a felony if they were in done with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime. Which the jury found unanimously that Trump did.

C’mon…..they couldn’t even prove ONE underlying crime, so the judge named three they could pick from, like ordering from a Chinese menu, and they didn’t have to agree. The case was so weak, and there was no evidence of the underlying crime, they were just allowed to split the difference.

A case with this much significance to the future of America should not come down to pretzel-twisting and novel interpretation of what unanimous means.

It wasn't that obscure. The enhancement is right there in 175.10.


Actually you can. 175.10 doesn't specify which crime the falsification of records was intended to commit, aid or conceal. Only that another crime was intended.

It isn't necessary to agree on which crime. ANY crime will do to meet the enhancement standards of 175.10. All the jury had to agree was that the falsification had been intended to commit, aid or conceal another crime.

And they did. Unanimously.

Yes, ANY crime. But it has to be unanimous. This bit about the initial misdemeanor having to be in unanimous, but the underlying crime does not, has no legal precedent.

And when the entire intention of this “case” was to target and smear Biden’s #1 political opponent, and throw a wrench into his campaign to interfere with it, untested legal theories and unnamed “other crimes” won’t cut it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't understand the term. Would black people say that when a black person is tried with an all white or mostly white jury that it would be called a jury of your peers? What about if you are a staunch Republican (we'll just call him Donald J Trump) and you have a trial in a deep blue city inside a deep blue state (with a deep blue DA and deep blue prosecutors and a deep blue judge)? Would that be called a jury of your peers? What in the hell is a peer?

"Peer" means equal. Technically Trump should have had a jury made up of successful politically active business people who could reasonably find themselves in the position Trump was in. Choosing the most radical, biased, misinformed, anti-Trump jury they could empanel was by no means a 'jury of his peers.' But then none of these courts have followed due process except the one run by Judge Aileen Cannon who seems to be interested in actually following the letter and intent of the law.