NY: Trump on Trial!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This trial is already exposing a schism among progressive election law scholars to an extent that I’ve very rarely seen….exemplified by the current Twitter feud between Rick Hasen and Laurence Tribe.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

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)

Interesting analysis.

There is also one other difference, besides having multiple (10) challenges. That is that rather than getting what you select, what you are actually getting (i.e. what ends up on the jury) are the people that you do NOT select to use a challenge on.

Plus there is an interaction with the choices the other side makes (hypothetically both sides might want to strike the same juror, for example there was one that said something unclear about Trump under questioning).

A further complication is that if the other side uses their challenges super fast (i.e. if they use them all on the first 10 potential jurors or something extreme for purposes of the example), then you won't necessarily have an opportunity to use all your remaining challenges on prospective jurors that you don't like. Because then the subsequent 10 that come up might all be ones that are not necessarily ideal for you, but not so bad that you would want to use a challenge on.

So if the other side is using challenges quickly, you are incentivized to do the same so as not to have too many more left than the other side that could potentially be wasted.

[Pericles]

We all know that cheating on your pregnant wife with a porn star makes you father of the year material.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

This trial is already exposing a schism among progressive election law scholars to an extent that I’ve very rarely seen….exemplified by the current Twitter feud between Rick Hasen and Laurence Tribe.

Perhaps you can say what is disputed in the twitter feud for those of us who do not want to support the evil empire by making an account.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This trial is already exposing a schism among progressive election law scholars to an extent that I’ve very rarely seen….exemplified by the current Twitter feud between Rick Hasen and Laurence Tribe.

Perhaps you can say what is disputed in the twitter feud for those of us who do not want to support the evil empire by making an account.

Hasen wrote an LA Times editorial where he strongly criticizes the case saying, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

Here’s the link:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-14/donald-trump-new-york-alvin-bragg-stormy-daniels

Tribe responded to Hasen’s Twitter post to the article with a rather ugly ad hominem attack on Hasen’s intelligence.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This trial is already exposing a schism among progressive election law scholars to an extent that I’ve very rarely seen….exemplified by the current Twitter feud between Rick Hasen and Laurence Tribe.

Perhaps you can say what is disputed in the twitter feud for those of us who do not want to support the evil empire by making an account.

Hasen wrote an LA Times editorial where he strongly criticizes the case saying, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

Here’s the link:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-14/donald-trump-new-york-alvin-bragg-stormy-daniels

Tribe responded to Hasen’s Twitter post to the article with a rather ugly ad hominem attack on Hasen’s intelligence.

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

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

This trial is already exposing a schism among progressive election law scholars to an extent that I’ve very rarely seen….exemplified by the current Twitter feud between Rick Hasen and Laurence Tribe.

Perhaps you can say what is disputed in the twitter feud for those of us who do not want to support the evil empire by making an account.

Hasen wrote an LA Times editorial where he strongly criticizes the case saying, “Calling it election interference actually cheapens the term and undermines the deadly serious charges in the real election interference cases.”

Here’s the link:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-14/donald-trump-new-york-alvin-bragg-stormy-daniels

Tribe responded to Hasen’s Twitter post to the article with a rather ugly ad hominem attack on Hasen’s intelligence.

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

Well Tribe currently has the following as the pinned tweet on his twitter account:

The criminal trial that begins April 15 has a theme almost nobody has yet fully appreciated. It’s the through line of illegally manipulating elections by distorting the information on the basis of which those elections are decided.

https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1779511090616909891

[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.

[Yoda]

Seven jurors selected.

Not too bad for Trump. One nurse, one teacher (probably both anti-Trump), one who had no clue how long the trial will last (probably bad for Trump, could be easily swayed), two lawyers (a lifeline for Trump, would not be convinced by weak evidence), one older IT training consultant who prioritizes his family (probably good for Trump and his defense that he paid the hush money to protect his family) and the foreman who is probably anti-Trump.

Trump only needs one stealth MAGA juror. So far, he didn't get that, but he got a decent jury.

Of course it's impossible to be sure without their identities, but I REALLY do not see two of the jurors being lawyers helping trump. Like at all. I think any lawyer worth his/her weight in spit is going get incredibly pissed off at trump's antics in and out of the courtroom and the defense's apparent character assassination of Cohen strategy. I also see lawyers scoffing at the idea that writing a check to a porn star you had an affair with disguised as a retainer/legal fee is in any way an "official act of the office of the President."

[LabourJersey]

There's a lot of Twitter chatter about the judge and reporters (namely Tyler McBride) are sharing far too many details about the potential juries - their jobs, how long they've lived in NY, etc.

Didn't want to include the tweets, but is that common at all? Wouldn't releasing that much information lead to jurors being doxxed? And how would that affect the 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

[wbrocks67]

Since redban loved that AP/NORC poll so much-

https://twitter.com/OpinionToday/status/1780353105881653293

[Redban]

So now 2 of the jurors are attorneys.

This likely works out well for Trump as this TDS liberal law dude notes in this thread

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1780398374405144981.html


Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1780591285004366100

[GeorgiaModerate]

The number of strikes for cause (with the judge's agreement) is unlimited, right?  It's just the peremptory ones that are limited.

[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.

[wbrocks67]

This may be a dumb question, but how/why did they pick a foreperson already? Don't they usually wait to install the entire jury before doing that?

[brucejoel99]

This may be a dumb question, but how/why did they pick a foreperson already? Don't they usually wait to install the entire jury before doing that?

In NYS, the foreperson is automatically whichever unlucky juror's ass happened to get stuck in Chair 1.

[GeorgiaModerate]

This may be a dumb question, but how/why did they pick a foreperson already? Don't they usually wait to install the entire jury before doing that?

I was surprised by that too.  When I've served on juries (in Georgia and Florida) we elected a foreperson as soon as the jury retired to deliberate.  Maybe New York State has different procedures.

[wbrocks67]

This may be a dumb question, but how/why did they pick a foreperson already? Don't they usually wait to install the entire jury before doing that?

In NYS, the foreperson is automatically whichever unlucky juror's ass happened to get stuck in Chair 1.

Oh god, this is an awful mandate. I've served in a jury and there are some people who i would NOT want to be the foreperson under any circumstances

[emailking]

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

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1780591285004366100

"Trump’s complaint about strikes is odd for multiple reasons — 1) it would make no sense for strikes to be unlimited in any criminal case; 2) his lawyers have known there would be 10 strikes for months."

When will people (including those who damned well ought to know better like Kyle Cheney) stop presenting Republicans as mistaken or confused? Donald Trump is lying. He is operating in bad faith. (As are the overwhelming majority of Republicans.)

Donald's "complaint" makes perfect sense - his goal is to cast the trial as illegitimate and politically motivated, in order to rile up his supporters, and provide them justification for future lawbreaking and violence.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1780591285004366100

"Trump’s complaint about strikes is odd for multiple reasons — 1) it would make no sense for strikes to be unlimited in any criminal case; 2) his lawyers have known there would be 10 strikes for months."

When will people (including those who damned well ought to know better like Kyle Cheney) stop presenting Republicans as mistaken or confused? Donald Trump is lying. He is operating in bad faith. (As are the overwhelming majority of Republicans.)

Donald's "complaint" makes perfect sense - his goal is to cast the trial as illegitimate and politically motivated, in order to rile up his supporters, and provide them justification for future lawbreaking and violence.

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1780603115240370537
In fact, [proceeds to not go all the way].

😩

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

[Redban]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The scenario implies that Trump's attorneys would request permission from Merchan to steer the jury towards the misdemeanors. That's if they really decide to go with this defense (i.e. concede that Trump committed a misdemeanor but not a felony)

Politico had reported about this strategy:

there’s another, less explored route that Trump’s team could try: asking the judge to give the jury the option of convicting him on lesser, misdemeanor offenses instead of the felony counts that have actually been brought by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and his team of prosecutors.

A person familiar with Trump’s legal strategy told me that some of Trump’s lawyers have quietly — albeit tentatively — considered that option in the run-up to the trial, which has not been previously reported. Trump’s attorneys did not respond to a request for comment.

“Now, obviously he doesn’t want” to be convicted at all, the person familiar with Trump’s legal strategy said, “but a misdemeanor conviction in state court in Manhattan is going to have absolutely no effect on this guy’s ability to run for office or on his liberty.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/11/trump-alvin-bragg-trial-win-00151558