NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

A juror has been dismissed, apparently raising concerns that her identity was in danger of being compromised. 

https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1780954087187476582

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Jesse Watters is one of the most annoying people on TV IMO, but the media as a whole* bears some responsibility, too.

In a case this high profile, you need to be careful about how much you're reporting when it comes to jurors.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

So you're saying that a pro-Trump juror can't be fair?  They'll put their loyalty to Trump above the rule of law?  If true, then they should all be excluded, no?

Yes, I am saying that. And yes, they should be excluded.

Not to pile on you, Ljube, as I do get your anxieties that Trump can't get a truly impartial jury on relatively liberal turf.  

But if pro-Trump jurors should be excluded and anti-Trump jurors should be excluded, that doesn't leave very much in the middle.  Changing the venue to a more "balanced" precinct wouldn't decrease the difficulty in finding truly independent-minded individuals who have no pre-loaded political opinions. I'd argue that these people don't really exist in today's political climate.  

The best we can do is utilizing the jury selection process where -- as far as I know -- Trump's legal team has been afforded the same privileges and opportunities to question/survey potential jurors as the prosecution.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

While he was walking into the courtroom Trump was asked about Taylor Swift's new secret double album and he did not respond. Boo.

Trump is gagged.
He can't respond to anything.

Trump regularly engages with the press before and after he walks into the courtroom.  The question was dumb (no offense, TayTay, your album is fire), but the gag order isn't a giant blanket "you can't talk about anything and everything, or else...".   He's just not allowed to discuss witnesses, jurors, or pretty much any personnel involved with the case.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Any idea on the time frame of this trial? When is it expected to conclude? Will there be additional delay tactics?

Not sure what you mean by delay tactics, but I think the ballpark estimate was 6-8 weeks -- so we likely have at least two more weeks minimum.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Any idea on the time frame of this trial? When is it expected to conclude? Will there be additional delay tactics?

Not sure what you mean by delay tactics, but I think the ballpark estimate was 6-8 weeks -- so we likely have at least two more weeks minimum.

By delay tactics, I mean filing frivolous motions, calling unnecessary witnesses, firing lawyers, etc. Anything to either prolong the trial or cause a mistrial

Got it.  Yeah I think six to eight weeks total was the ballpark estimate, but who knows?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Merchan denies defense long shot motion for mistrial on basis of Stormy’s salacious testimony. But he concedes that “In fairness to the people, I think the witness was a little bit difficult to control” and ““that there are some things that would have been better left unsaid.”

Yet you read this thread , you will hear claims that Stormy has been  “sharp, likable, and in control”

My own impression -- at least catching up after work -- is that I would not trust Stormy as a personal confidant.  At the same time, though, I don't get the sense she was being delusive today regardless of how overzealous she was with some of her responses. 

Then again, it's hard to say either way considering that we're all getting our impressions of the proceedings through text-only accounts. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Blanche then asks if Cohen has called Trump a "Cheeto-dusted cartoon villain."

"That also sounds like something that I said," Cohen says.

I'm dead. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1792915076313198886

Obviously I'm biased (and also spending a beautiful day off inside because head cold), but this hardly seems like the sort of thing that the defense wanted by calling Costello.

Add to that a communication from Cohen, telling Costello to buzz off and that [Cohen] is explicitly not [Costello's] client, and it leaves me wondering what the defense's strategy here was. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

By the way, a member of the Trump defense team said that the "sending Trump to prison" line was a mistake.
Another person who was present in the courtroom said the jury didn't have an emotional reaction when Blanche said that.

It seems that the attempt didn't work.
I thought it would, but it didn't.

You were expecting people to shed tears over the thought of Trump going to prison??

At least to consider the importance of their role and potential consequences of their decision.

When I served on a jury, we were specifically instructed NOT to consider potential sentencing.  I presume it was because sentencing can inject emotion into a juror's decision-making, a process that should (ideally) be fact-based.  

Say a defendant is facing the death penalty and the prosecution has a rock-solid case. If jurors were allowed to consider the potential penalty, I'm sure there would be jurors who would say "I think the prosecution has proven its case, but I don't want to be responsible for condemning a person to death".  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Death penalty is a special case because the prosecution has to specify ahead of time they're going for that penalty, and jurors have to be willing to impose the death penalty if the facts & law warrant it in order to serve on the jury, including for the guilt phase. Not sure it's that way in all jurisdictions but I think usually it is.

Ah, thank you for the clarification! Point remains: as others have said, having the jury consider a potential penalty can inject emotion into a case where it doesn't belong.  

It'd be the same if the prosecution said "Trump deserves jailtime" and a juror translated this to "well, the prosecution didn't prove its case, but I want Trump to go to jail". 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

What do you think, will the defense ask for misdemeanors to be included?

Jury instructions were finalized last Thurs. & they didn't:

Can they still change their minds?

I believe they can.

Jury instructions are finalized & provided to the parties before summations so that the parties can tailor their summations to the instructions that'll be given to the jury they're arguing before.

I was curious about this myself, so I texted an attorney friend and this is what she said.  My Atlas legal eagles, please feel free to correct or clarify.  

"I practice in (state), so I don't know the specifics of NY law, but my understanding is that the defense can technically request a change up until the jury starts deliberating.  But doing so around* closing arguments would be very rare and unusual.

*EDIT (oops, there was another part to her message): "Plus it wouldn't just be a simple 'hey changed our minds, we want the misdemeanor charges considered'.  In short, it'd be a messy request to make at this stage.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Also, it seems there was no last minute plea deal, as some had hypothesized during the trial.

So it looks like no plea deal or misdemeanor.

Hung jury or felony at this point, I would think. Acquittal seems the most unlikely.

Why not plea this to a misdemeanor? Sounds like a good compromise.

If Trump did this, wouldn’t he have to publicly allocute?

Yes. Why not?
It's a misdemeanor.

Partly because there's no way Trump would ever admit guilt, so a plea would be a nonstarter. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Lowkey amused by the CNN countup timer on the jury deliberation.  You don't see too many countups lol.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

I don't mean to be that girl and def not a mod myself, but can we maybe take the quote pyramid elsewhere babes?

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Just came in from a run -- frankly I'm shocked.  Thought for sure we were going into Friday. 

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

It's going to take them a while to fill out 34 forms.

So the forms aren't filled yet?

Nope, MSNBC (don't @ me, it was the first news channel on my TV guide thingy) says it'll take about 30 minutes or so

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

Didn't see if this was already reported, but MSNBC and NPR reporting that it's either guilty or not guilty (though there can be different verdicts for each charge) -- no hung jury.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

CNN reporting the judge has called for the jury

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

In case *anybody* needs to know how 85-year old Gujarati night-owl grandmothers in India feel about this: mine is apparently thrilled.  

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

https://twitter.com/gregmocker/status/1796312985431847176

I'll be honest, I had NO idea what Bragg actually looked like.  Kinda like how I didn't know what Bob Casey looked like until like 2022...

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

God this is going to be bad, Like holy sh**t the tsunami of smug leftoid jerking off to this will emit so such smug energy it just going to kill the internet for a few days.

Coping seed., nd also can't tell the difference between a convicted felon and someone suited to be president. Utterly sucks to be you. But then that could be said about pretty much every Texas republican-exception for Penn Quaker girl

No, I definitely can't either -- example: many of my ex-boyfriends...