Trump is clearly entitled to a directed verdict in the NY case
| Concupiscible dark institution | 05/21/24 | | vibrant coral therapy | 05/21/24 | | avocado frisky gay wizard field | 05/21/24 | | silver twinkling uncleanness water buffalo | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | motley macaca | 05/21/24 | | vibrant coral therapy | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | Vermilion thriller address | 05/21/24 | | vibrant coral therapy | 05/21/24 | | Fighting red windowlicker | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | Fighting red windowlicker | 05/21/24 | | Stirring Spruce Church Building | 05/21/24 | | Fighting red windowlicker | 05/21/24 | | Vermilion thriller address | 05/21/24 | | Fighting red windowlicker | 05/21/24 | | Vermilion thriller address | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | Vermilion thriller address | 05/21/24 | | vibrant coral therapy | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | Vermilion thriller address | 05/21/24 | | Very tactful fanboi | 05/21/24 | | Vermilion thriller address | 05/21/24 | | rough-skinned lemon preventive strike philosopher-king | 05/21/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 21st, 2024 3:54 PM Author: Fighting red windowlicker
"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: Very tactful fanboi
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: rough-skinned lemon preventive strike philosopher-king
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) |
|
|