Whereas, if there were any notion of “a jury of one’s peers”, then one would be allowed to select for jurors who were similar in some way to the defendant. The fact of Batson challenges is evidence that the US does not have juries of peers.
Yes. 34 payments to Cohen. Every charge is under NY Penal Law §175.10.
Yes and no. Frequently there will be a general question along the lines “do you know of any other reason you would not be able to try this case according to the evidence and the law?” If something like that is asked, Whack-a-mole should raise their hand.
If you want to know ‘exactly’ what they’re accusing him of:
As I said very clearly, just honestly answer the questions you are asked
One example is the hush money payment to Stormy Daniels. Cohen paid her directly (via a shell company), and was reimbursed. There are the other payoffs mentioned as well.
Now, paying hush money itself is not itself necessarily illegal. But the way he was reimbursed was a series of invoices for legal services. And that would be a false business record. But that by itself is not too serious an issue - it is a misdemeanor under NY law.
But the falsification appears to have been made with the intent to either commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime (there’s been some debate over precisely which law(s) were intended to be violated). And that elevates it to a felony charge for each offense.
You’ve received great answers from @hajario and @Procrustus.
My personal opinion is that if you’re aware this is an issue that will be of interest to the parties, you should raise it.
I’ll add that it’s not an automatic that you will get out of jury duty. In several cases I worked on, I swore in people who proclaimed they believe in jury nullification.
Presumably you take this seriously enough that you would only exercise it in a situation where there was a clear miscarriage of justice going on – and not just for shits and giggles because you can.
I know we’re all hoping Trump is convicted of a felony. At least, I am. But if the evidence isn’t strong enough to convict him of a felony in the eyes of the jury, but is strong enough to convince them that he committed several/many/34 misdemeanors, can he be convicted of the misdemeanors? Or is it Felony or Nothing?
I would conceivably nullify if I thought the particular law itself was wrong. Years ago it would have been possession of cannabis for example.
IANAL but I think it’s felony or nothing. He was indicted under the felony version (175.10), not the misdemeanor version (175.09).
I hope one of the board’s lawyers can confirm.
Does a lesser included offense apply here? (I do not know, IANAL)
Looks like yesterday’s transcript is out (120 page PDF):
https://pdfs.nycourts.gov/PeopleVs.DTrump-71543/transcripts/P.v%20Trump%20Transcript%20042244.pdf
The New York court site plans to publish daily transcripts, though they mention that it won’t be until the next day. Here’s the NY court site:
Thank you.
The business records are a mixture: (1) Trump/Trump Org checks; (2) invoices from Cohen and kept by Trump Org; (3) entries on the Trump Org general ledger.
*I skimmed but those were all categories or at least the vast majority.
If I were on the jury, I would convict of BOTH mopery AND dopery.
Years ago, I was dismissed during voir dire because of this. They expected to go through a considerable portion of the jury pool, so the judge set it up that six members of the pool would be questioned at a time (IIRC, they asked each question and then went down the row for each of the six to answer, then on to the next question). After all the questions, the judge would have each of the six sit in the appropriate seat (filling from 1-12) in the jury box, then there would be a peremptory challenge or a sidebar or nothing (juror accepted).
I could tell from the questioning of the first six that:
It was going to be drug trial
It was going to be about marijuana
It was not going to concern dealing, but a mother allowing her son to deal out of her house (with, to me the potential for confiscation of the house)
The last question asked was about whether the potential juror could reach a verdict based on the law, regardless of their stance on the law (this was pre-legalization of any kind). Just about everyone answered with some variation of “yes, I might not agree with the current law, but I would follow the law in reaching my verdict”.
In my group, when I was asked this final question, I just, for lack of a better description, felt tired all over.
I quietly (no ranting) described the current state of the “war on drugs”, the cost to people’s and family’s lives, and the financial underpinnings preventing rational reform, leading to the injustice within the justice system that was gnawing at the foundations of this country. I probably spoke for no more than 2-3 minutes.
I sort of ran down, and finished with a lame, “but I think I could arrive at a verdict based on the law”. The judge told me to sit in the jury box, but I didn’t even make it one step when the prosecutor, without looking up, said “We thank and excuse juror [number]”.
I honestly expected to reply with just that final statement when they started down our row of six.
So, I guess I found a sure-fire way of getting out of jury duty (for drug cases, at last).
Yes, but he cut the checks to repay Cohen while serving as president.
The defense, I’d think, is that he was focusing on being president, and not paying particular attention to why he had to repay Cohen, since it concerned the private business he was no longer running.
(But, I see 2 primary problems with this: one, the DA is going to expend effort to introduce testimony that donald was very miserly, and scrupulous about haggling over every expenditure. So it defies belief that he was casual about this repayment. And, two, I don’t know who the defense is going to have testify that donald divested himself of control of his companies. Since it didn’t actually happen).
Maybe the defense can spin it as “see why he didn’t want this to come out! It has devastated his wife”
This will ultimately depend on the jury instructions, but the DA (or the defense) can ask for an instruction to a lesser included offense.
(Why would the defense? Strategically, you might want to concede the minor offense of misrepresenting a bookkeeping entry, but continue to insist that it wasn’t about covering up the larger election interference crime.
Here, given the particulars of this defendant, I don’t expect that to happen. Additionally, if the defense is ‘donald was in the dark about the shenanigans,’ then it might not make sense to concede any knowing wrongdoing)
Hah!!
Which “business” was it that he was (not) running when he wrote these checks? It seems to me, they weren’t “business” checks at all, because this was a personal matter. This story coming out would have little effect on Trump’s actual businesses, but would have a huge impact on his personal and political life.
I think felony or nothing because the statue of limitations for the misdemeanors is up. Claim is made here:
If the defense requests an instruction on lessor included offense, then I think they have waived the Statute of Limitations issue, which they can do. (not, I’m not a NY lawyer).