NY: Trump on Trial!

[emailking]

Trump’s first criminal trial is a historic and solemn moment for America

The United States will cross a historic threshold on Monday when for the first time a former president goes on criminal trial in a case laced with fateful significance because Donald Trump could be back in the Oval Office next year.

When the presumptive GOP nominee walks into court for the start of jury selection, he and the country will enter a new state of reality as legal and political worlds collide in a trial almost guaranteed to deepen Americans’ bitter ideological estrangement.

The trial, related to hush money payments to an adult film actress before the 2016 election, will mark yet another extraordinary twist in the story of Trump, whose incessant testing of the limits of presidential decorum and the law has caused nearly nine years of political tumult and may still have years left to run. It raises the possibility that, depending on the jury’s verdict, the Republican nominee in the 2024 presidential election could be a convicted felon. And given the case’s subject matter — details about a payment to a woman who alleged that she had a sexual relationship with Trump, which he denies — it could reflect poorly on Trump’s character...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/14/politics/trump-first-criminal-trial-analysis/index.html

[emailking]

As I posted before 2/3 of registered voters think it is a serious case per a Reuters poll. It's a matter of opinion of suppose, but most voters do not think it is a joke.

[emailking]

That's the problem with your line of thinking - i don't think he broke any laws in this case, but even if he did, the problem is the law itself. It's a stupid law. Nobody was harmed, nor was anyone's property taken and/or destroyed. The only person who lost something was Trump, who spent his money reimbursing Cohen. You may find it sleazy and immoral, but certainly not something we should waste taxpayer money trying to prosecute. Especially when this DA in question has no problem refusing to prosecute ACTUAL crimes, like muggings, stabbings, assaults, etc.

Wait, which law is it you're saying is a stupid law but Trump didn't break it? Falsifying business records?

[emailking]

Even if (he gets convicted and) it gets struck down, that won't happen before the election.

[emailking]

I'm quite certain that states do not have the authority to ban flights from other states, that would violate hordes of Constitutional provisions and precedents on interstate commerce, not to mention that airports and flights are governed by the FAA, a federal agency.

I think this is the same poster that said he was half joking another time he posted something similary hyperbolic.

[emailking]

Uggh wish the judge would rule on contempt from the bench now without a scheduled hearing later in the week. He's got everything there.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1779914908538413528

[emailking]

According to news reports, over half of the jury pool has already been dismissed on the impartiality question, when 40% was the expected number . This case might die on appeal

All that matters is if the final 12 (and alternates) say that can be fair and impartial.

[emailking]

In the Young Thug trial here in Atlanta, jury selection took almost 10 months.

This is why I think the odds this comes down a plea agreement is very high. Like 65%. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Trump have to be there everyday during jury selection? Based on what I've seen, he looks miserable, no way he can take 2 months of this, let alone 10. I think he'll try and plea to a misdemeanor count of falsifying business records. Good change Bragg will accept an agreement because if the trial goes forward and Trump is either acquitted or case is overturned on appeal, that would be the end of Bragg's career. With this, he can still hang his hat on a conviction, even if it's not a felony.

My udnerstanding is that he does have to be there every day. I don't know about a plea deal though.

[emailking]

Trump is making remarks now....does not look good lol.

[emailking]

https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1779973178883715103

He just whined about this on camera. (SCOTUS arguments)

Also something about not being able to go to his son's graduation.

[emailking]

Good, there's no reason he needs to be at the SCOTUS argument. Son's graduation I might personally be more sympathetic towards.

[emailking]

Trump is the first Republican or Democrat presumptive nominee to go on trial.

[emailking]

Takes a few days before your body will let you start going to sleep earlier. Maybe he'll get there!

[emailking]

That's a wrap on day 2!

6 jurors selected, wow!

This could go much faster than anticipated!

[emailking]

I think we have no idea if there's a stealth Maga juror nor could we unless they come forward after the trial.

[emailking]

I suppose one way to look at it is they're going to insist on going over every piece of evidence with a proverbial microscope (à la the doctor/lawyer Scott Peterson jury that ground deliberations to a halt). Another way to look at it is they're highly educated and this statistically likely to have disdain for Trump.

[emailking]

I haven’t followed the details of each individual juror, but I’m surprised the prosecution is letting lawyers onto the jury.  I had thought it was common knowledge that lawyers were generally good for the defendant.  I myself was once seated as a potential juror in a criminal trial (I think a drug sale case), but was dismissed by the prosecution when I told them I had a law degree.

Lawyers usually get struck. As do engineers. Really anyone with an advanced degree. But each side only gets so many strikes, and sometimes there are just worse jurors in the pool that are a higher priority to use your strikes on.

Part of the issue with the peremptory challenges is that they are not first questioning ALL the prospective jurors and then doing the peremptory challenges, but instead each side has to decide whether or not to use a permeptory challenge sequentially after each individual prospective juror is interviewed.

The result of doing it this way is that whichever side runs out of peremptory challenges first might end up being stuck with a SUPER unfavorable/biased juror against them which they would have wanted to use one of their peremptory challenges on, but then have no challenge left because they used them on someone who was not as bad for them.

Ideally, it seems to me that it would be better to examine ALL the potential jurors first, and then each side would know all the potential jurors and then use their challenges, because this would eliminate that additional element of randomness that comes only as a result of the ORDER in which potential jurors are questioned.

This video suggests, as a general principle, that statistically you should look at 37% of the possibilities before making a decision (using a challenge). But I haven't tried to figure out how this is affected by having the ability to make multiple challenges.

(go to 12:03)

[emailking]

Tribe wasn't talking about GA or maybe DC? It's idiotic to say this case is about election interference.

I don't know about this X discussion, but it's an election interference case.

[emailking]

A jury that will decide Trump’s fate begins to take shape as first criminal trial powers ahead

There are two Donald Trump criminal trials now taking place.

There’s the one in a Manhattan courtroom, where a judge, attorneys for both sides and prospective jurors are making strenuous efforts to lay the foundation of the fair trial to which the ex-president and every other citizen is entitled.

And there’s the imaginary trial that exists in Trump’s rhetoric, led by “heartless thugs” and a “very conflicted judge” who is “rushing the trial” that the presumptive GOP nominee claims is a “Biden inspired witch-hunt.”

In court on Tuesday, Trump made eye contact with potential jurors and was admonished by Judge Juan Merchan for muttering while one was questioned. But the surprisingly snappy pace of the process confounded initial expectations that putting on trial possibly the most famous man on Earth would be a laborious and prolonged process. While there were occasional moments of levity in the court and reminders that Trump’s status make him a defendant like none other...One potential juror, for instance, noted: “This is real. This man’s life is on the line, the country’s on the line, this is serious.”

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/16/politics/donald-trump-trial-narrative-analysis/index.html

[emailking]

Both sides have used 6 of their peremptory strikes and they still need to pick 11 more jurors so things are probably going to get contentious on Thursday.

[emailking]

When I was on a civil jury, all the foreperson did was fill out the forms. We had a verdict in an hour.

[emailking]

If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

To clarify, this is conjecture. The judge has no obligation to dismiss a misdemeanor conviction.

[emailking]

Also not necessarily the case. Consider Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder but convicted of 4 misdemeanor counts of lying to police. And the judge sentenced her to the max for each one and ran them consecutively and she got 4 years in prison for that. (With time served she was only in jail a few more weeks but she got the absolute max.) 2 counts were later overturned but 2 survived appeal. Courts don't just outright dismiss misdemeanor convictions when they believe the defendant has done something wrong.

[emailking]

I mean he has to do a lot of Truth Socialing late at night we shouldn't judge.