NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[Holmes]

I expect deliberations to take at least a week.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Most hold out jurors are not Henry Fonda, most will break under peer pressure in the jury room, especially when most of them just want it to be done.

My mom did jury duty once and it was a hung jury, according to her it was a rape case and had an interesting but not surprising breakdown of all the women voting for guilty yet all the men except for one voting for not guilty (no one really disputing that the defendant was almost certainly guilty but arguing that the evidence was merely circumstantial and didn't meet beyond a reasonable doubt.) However that sounds more like an even split rather than one rogue juror.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If it's a case of jury nullification, it doesn't matter what the judge's instructions were. A MAGA holdout is not going to convict regardless of the facts and evidence, or whatever "peer pressure" there is. They will hang the jury.

Yes if somebody's determined to hang the jury then the jury will probably hang. But we don't know that somebody is determined to hang the jury and liking far right Republicans doesn't mean this person will refuse to deliberate in good faith.

The Paul Manafort case is a good example, there was apparently one staunch Trump supporter on that jury and she kept initially looking for excuses to acquit Manafort early in deliberations but ended up realizing she couldn't come up with one.

[brucejoel99]

The NYT reported that the first thing the jurors asked for was the paralegal’s computer with all the evidence on it. They specifically wanted the checks trump signed

Jurors four and six, a man and a woman, are gathered around a laptop with a paralegal for the prosecution. Todd Blanche stands behind the computer looking on. Everyone nods. The male juror prepares to take the computer and the paralegal seems hesitant. “He can take it,” the judge says. He does and the two jurors leave the room.

All the trial exhibits are on that laptop, which could help speed up the deliberations: the jurors will not have to request specific documentary evidence they wish to review. Nor will they have to view it in the courtroom, which always takes awhile.

https://twitter.com/anthonymkreis/status/1795847086698533262

[Ljube]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

[Ljube]

I expect deliberations to take at least a week.

Look, if they think Trump is guilty, they will come back quickly, like today.

If there is deliberation, that would mean that some of the jurors think Trump is not guilty, and since the evidence won't convince anyone thinking Trump is not guilty of his guilt, then it will take longer.

[brucejoel99]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.

Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.

The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

Hence Steinglass' significantly heavy focus on physical corroborating evidence in his summation:

https://twitter.com/harrylitman/status/1795826475851288825

[Ljube]

I don't think Cohen is the same person he was when these events went down.

He’s clearly a fundamentally dishonest and immoral person, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t give truthful testimony.  I think he pretty clearly did.

We cannot be sure of that. I tend to not trust known liars.

A Trump supporter says what? Perhaps the richest irony ore load ever!

I am not a Trump supporter. As you well know, I was for his conviction in the second impeachment trial.

I am very much against Biden and Trump is the lesser of two evils.

[Ljube]

Really good end of closing calling Michael Cohen the GLOAT.
That one is going to stick in the minds of the jurors, and they aren't going to be able to shake it off.

Another good thing, sneaking in the "sending Trump to prison" reference.

The latter is unquestionably NOT a good thing, considering Merchan will issue a curative instruction.

Really, the defense could've had a much better closing statement. I'm not a lawyer, and even I can see where they missed opportunities.

Curative instructions don't matter.
The important thing was to impress upon the jurors that a guilty verdict = Trump in jail.

The impression, to be corrected, that a guilty verdict automatically equals jail is more important than another clear statement from the judge that the defense is acting out of order and unreasonably?

Yes.

This was done on purpose.

Well, at least you're finally outright admitting to being an unreserved partisan hack who cares nothing whatsoever for the rule of law. Fully expected with your posting history in this thread, but nice to have confirmation nonetheless.

Not sure how you managed to infer this from my post.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

[Ljube]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

What is the corroborating evidence that Trump knew about the meeting between Cohen and Weisselberg?

[GeorgiaModerate]

The online right wing is erupting over a contention that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous to find Trump guilty, following a misleading tweet from Fox's John Roberts to that effect.  He later corrected it to confirm that they do have to be unanimous that Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records, but they don't have to be unanimous about which underlying crime it was in support of (which is what elevates it to a felony).  But it's too late, the damage is done.

[brucejoel99]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

What is the corroborating evidence that Trump knew about the meeting between Cohen and Weisselberg?

They need corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant to the charged crime, not of each & every individual aspect of an accomplice's testimony.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

Ever post Ljube has made in this thread is wishcasting tbf

[brucejoel99]

The online right wing is erupting over a contention that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous to find Trump guilty, following a misleading tweet from Fox's John Roberts to that effect.  He later corrected it to confirm that they do have to be unanimous that Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records, but they don't have to be unanimous about which underlying crime it was in support of (which is what elevates it to a felony).  But it's too late, the damage is done.

The wording of that tweet & duration of time in between corrections…

https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1795830647719932058https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1795835934694650283https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1795848224470700242
No doubt he knew exactly what he was doing!

[soundchaser]

^ It’s such transparent nonsense that I almost feel bad for anyone who will get riled up by it.

[Ljube]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

What is the corroborating evidence that Trump knew about the meeting between Cohen and Weisselberg?

They need corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant to the charged crime, not of each & every individual aspect of an accomplice's testimony.

The charged crime requires that Trump knew of the agreement between Wesselberg and Cohen and knew that before the election. Therefore, Trumps participation in Cohen's scheme before the election is key to establishing guilt in this case.

[The Mikado]

Trump team increasingly sees acquittal as unlikely, sees their only path through hung jury.

They seem to think 1 juror may be on their side. Hard to tell if it's just desperate spin at this point though

https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1795563214308082144

Having your ”face light up” at the sight of JD Vance is not something a normal person does. Also “reacting favorably” to seeing Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a first term Congresswoman literally no one knows? IF this reporting is accurate, it’s going to be a hung jury.

Anna Paulina Luna is literally a former model. I could easily imagine a male juror "reacting favorably" to seeing her for non-political reasons.

[brucejoel99]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

What is the corroborating evidence that Trump knew about the meeting between Cohen and Weisselberg?

They need corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant to the charged crime, not of each & every individual aspect of an accomplice's testimony.

The charged crime requires that Trump knew of the agreement between Wesselberg and Cohen and knew that before the election. Therefore, Trumps participation in Cohen's scheme before the election is key to establishing guilt in this case.

We all know that. You're talking past us now. You're the only one who, for some reason, seems to think that means the jurors need to be shown physical corroboration of everything Cohen testified to in order for his credibility to remain legally sufficient enough to sustain a conviction; no, they just need corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the charged crime that may or may not assist in sustaining the accomplice-witness' credibility with the jury. You're acting like Cohen was the prosecution's only witness & not 1 of 20.

[Ljube]

Key point - it will come down the corroborating evidence, which there is quite a bit of

This is very good for Trump.
Key parts of Cohen's testimony are not corroborated by any other evidence.
The most important part is Cohen's testimony that Trump told him to fix it and knew about it all the time.

On the contrary, there was a boatload of corroborating evidence.  This is wishcasting.

What is the corroborating evidence that Trump knew about the meeting between Cohen and Weisselberg?

They need corroborating evidence tending to connect the defendant to the charged crime, not of each & every individual aspect of an accomplice's testimony.

The charged crime requires that Trump knew of the agreement between Wesselberg and Cohen and knew that before the election. Therefore, Trumps participation in Cohen's scheme before the election is key to establishing guilt in this case.

We all know that. You're talking past us now. You're the only one who, for some reason, seems to think that means the jurors need to be shown physical corroboration of everything Cohen testified to in order for his credibility to remain legally sufficient enough to sustain a conviction; no, they just need corroborating evidence connecting the defendant to the charged crime that may or may not assist in sustaining the accomplice-witness' credibility with the jury. You're acting like Cohen was the prosecution's only witness & not 1 of 20.

He was the only witness establishing the key facts.
Without him there is no proof Trump knew about the payments to Stormy Daniels before the election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So it sounds like even if NickG was on the jury he'd be voting to convict.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Trump team increasingly sees acquittal as unlikely, sees their only path through hung jury.

They seem to think 1 juror may be on their side. Hard to tell if it's just desperate spin at this point though

https://twitter.com/MarcACaputo/status/1795563214308082144

Having your ”face light up” at the sight of JD Vance is not something a normal person does. Also “reacting favorably” to seeing Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, a first term Congresswoman literally no one knows? IF this reporting is accurate, it’s going to be a hung jury.

Anna Paulina Luna is literally a former model. I could easily imagine a male juror "reacting favorably" to seeing her for non-political reasons.

Sure, but I wouldn’t say the same about Vance or Donalds. Hope this doesn’t screw things up because the case seems solid enough for the other 11.

[mjba257]

No updates in a while - are they on lunch?

[emailking]

Most hold out jurors are not Henry Fonda, most will break under peer pressure in the jury room, especially when most of them just want it to be done.

Also recall that even Fonda (or Jack Lemmon if you prefer that version) was willing to stop being a holdout and vote guilty if everyone else would agree to vote guilty under a secret vote (and then Juror #9, McCardle, voted NG because Fonda's character had the guts to stand alone).

[Gass3268]

The online right wing is erupting over a contention that the jury doesn't have to be unanimous to find Trump guilty, following a misleading tweet from Fox's John Roberts to that effect.  He later corrected it to confirm that they do have to be unanimous that Trump committed the crime of falsifying business records, but they don't have to be unanimous about which underlying crime it was in support of (which is what elevates it to a felony).  But it's too late, the damage is done.

The wording of that tweet & duration of time in between corrections…

https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1795830647719932058https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1795835934694650283https://twitter.com/johnrobertsfox/status/1795848224470700242
No doubt he knew exactly what he was doing!

Marco Rubio is now running with this. This will now be gospel on the MAGA right regardless for the truth.