Trump is clearly entitled to a directed verdict in the NY case
| Alcoholic Fear-inspiring Roast Beef Ticket Booth | 05/21/24 | | Slippery Field | 05/21/24 | | ebony brunch bbw | 05/21/24 | | soul-stirring pale puppy | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | Cordovan hairless sanctuary stain | 05/21/24 | | Slippery Field | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | Bateful coffee pot | 05/21/24 | | Slippery Field | 05/21/24 | | Excitant telephone stage | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | Excitant telephone stage | 05/21/24 | | ruby overrated stead | 05/21/24 | | Excitant telephone stage | 05/21/24 | | Bateful coffee pot | 05/21/24 | | Excitant telephone stage | 05/21/24 | | Bateful coffee pot | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | Bateful coffee pot | 05/21/24 | | Slippery Field | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | Bateful coffee pot | 05/21/24 | | irradiated chartreuse clown | 05/21/24 | | Bateful coffee pot | 05/21/24 | | Rambunctious Sooty Philosopher-king Hairy Legs | 05/21/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 21st, 2024 3:54 PM Author: Excitant telephone stage
"You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase," Merchan said, per Vance's blog. Merchan made the comment while discussing whether the defense could call an expert in campaign finance law.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-merchan-tipped-his-hand-on-key-issue-attorney/ar-BB1mLWxJ
======
can someone walk me through this? if that's so, then what proof would Trump be on notice to provide to contradict something that the prosecution doesn't even have to define?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531101&forum_id=2#47680538)
|
|
Date: May 21st, 2024 4:19 PM Author: irradiated chartreuse clown
yes. i posted the prosecutions motion on this when they were defending the indictment, but they literally argued, and the judge accepted, that defining what the second crime was would "limit their prosecution's strategies."
it makes sense when you consider that when these cases are brought it's obvious that the falsifier was up to something. if you had business records with material falsifications that could not have occurred by accident, it may be obvious you had criminal intent, even though i might not be able to prove how or who you were trying to defraud. for example, let's say that i falsified my assets in case i had an insurance claim, but i never made such a claim, then i would still be guilty here.
the only reason it's ridiculous here is because of how attenuated the case is at every level.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531101&forum_id=2#47680604) |
Date: May 21st, 2024 4:51 PM Author: Rambunctious Sooty Philosopher-king Hairy Legs
Law noob here. Do state court judges usually granted directed verdicts in criminal cases?
Does it make a difference if the judge is a Jew from New York and the defendant is Donald Trump?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531101&forum_id=2#47680760) |
|
|