• Legal expert: We didn’t know is really what he was found guilty of
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley said:
[T]his case was legally unfounded.
When they were reading those guilty verdicts, the one thing that we didn’t know is really what he was found guilty of. Because if you remember, the judge allowed the jury to find guilt on any one of three secondary crimes. We weren’t told whether the jury found any one of those crimes or whether they found all three of those crimes. I’m not too sure we will know that. That’s one of the many issues that I think presents reversible problems in this case.
Details: here
• Prosecutors never identified an underlying felony to the resurrected misdemeanor bookkeeping charges that had lapsed.
– Legal scholars say a defendant’s right to a fair trial and due process is undermined when not having the specific charge they are facing spelled out for them to properly defend.
– The judge instructed jurors that they would only have to find that Mr. Trump committed bookkeeping infractions to conceal a campaign finance violation, tax law infraction or the falsification of business records. They didn’t have to agree on what the underlying crime was to find the former president guilty.
Details: here, here
• The judge told jurors they didn’t have to agree on what the underlying crime was to find the former president guilty.
The judge instructed jurors that they would only have to find that Mr. Trump committed bookkeeping infractions to conceal a campaign finance violation, tax law infraction or the falsification of business records. They didn’t have to agree on what the underlying crime was to find the former president guilty.
Details: here, here
• The judge essentially told jurors that if they’re split on what crime Trump committed, he’d treat that as unanimous.
GWU law professor Jonathan Turley:
“…Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous…”
“According to Judge Merchan, the jury could come back with a guilty verdict without agreeing on whether Trump committed election fraud, tax fraud, or falsification of business records. He essentially divided the jury into three groups of four, saying that if they’re split 4-4-4 on what crime Trump committed, he’d treat that as unanimous. To say this is unusual is of course a gross understatement.
Details: here, here
• CNN legal expert: Prosecution fell way short of proving case against Trump
(After closing arguments)
Details: here, here
• CNN Jake Tapper: Prosecutors have not proved case beyond reasonable doubt
(After closing arguments)
Details: here, here
• Constitutional lawyer Mark Levin: This is a non-case. There is no crime, federal, state, or local.
The state misdemeanor having to do with corporate reporting was not violated. The NDA was a legal expense and reported as such. The misdemeanor statue had already run anyway.
Details: here, here
• Judge placed unconstitutional gag order on Trump only
Details: here, Letter from Senator J.D. Vance, here
• Judge Merchan warned of arrest if Trump disrupts or skips trial
Details: here
|
FactReal 
Leave a comment