Trump is clearly entitled to a directed verdict in the NY case
| Startling chocolate depressive | 05/21/24 | | Chestnut cuck yarmulke | 05/21/24 | | exhilarant church | 05/21/24 | | mind-boggling domesticated bawdyhouse | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | Orange metal den | 05/21/24 | | Chestnut cuck yarmulke | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | sooty cruel-hearted dog poop | 05/21/24 | | Chestnut cuck yarmulke | 05/21/24 | | charismatic angry stag film | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | charismatic angry stag film | 05/21/24 | | boyish gaming laptop | 05/21/24 | | charismatic angry stag film | 05/21/24 | | sooty cruel-hearted dog poop | 05/21/24 | | charismatic angry stag film | 05/21/24 | | sooty cruel-hearted dog poop | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | sooty cruel-hearted dog poop | 05/21/24 | | Chestnut cuck yarmulke | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | sooty cruel-hearted dog poop | 05/21/24 | | concupiscible idiot chapel | 05/21/24 | | sooty cruel-hearted dog poop | 05/21/24 | | filthy 180 fat ankles | 05/21/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 21st, 2024 3:54 PM Author: charismatic angry stag film
"You must remember, the People are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore, that reduces the need or the burden to define every term and every phrase," Merchan said, per Vance's blog. Merchan made the comment while discussing whether the defense could call an expert in campaign finance law.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-merchan-tipped-his-hand-on-key-issue-attorney/ar-BB1mLWxJ
======
can someone walk me through this? if that's so, then what proof would Trump be on notice to provide to contradict something that the prosecution doesn't even have to define?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531101&forum_id=2#47680538)
|
|
Date: May 21st, 2024 4:19 PM Author: concupiscible idiot chapel
yes. i posted the prosecutions motion on this when they were defending the indictment, but they literally argued, and the judge accepted, that defining what the second crime was would "limit their prosecution's strategies."
it makes sense when you consider that when these cases are brought it's obvious that the falsifier was up to something. if you had business records with material falsifications that could not have occurred by accident, it may be obvious you had criminal intent, even though i might not be able to prove how or who you were trying to defraud. for example, let's say that i falsified my assets in case i had an insurance claim, but i never made such a claim, then i would still be guilty here.
the only reason it's ridiculous here is because of how attenuated the case is at every level.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531101&forum_id=2#47680604) |
Date: May 21st, 2024 4:51 PM Author: filthy 180 fat ankles
Law noob here. Do state court judges usually granted directed verdicts in criminal cases?
Does it make a difference if the judge is a Jew from New York and the defendant is Donald Trump?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5531101&forum_id=2#47680760) |
|
|