But the answers given in the interview might result in a lighter or harsher sentence. Isn’t that still legal jeopardy of a sort? Can the interviewer draw a negative inference if he declines to answer?
Yeah but as I understand it, it his opportunity to say something that might mitigate the sentence, he doesn’t have to say anything.
Just posting an article that goes over any appellate issues. Conclusion: It’s overblown.
It’s important for me to remember that Trump was charged with falsifying business records and he did that to conceal ONE other specific (predicate) election crime. Just one. Not more or others (taxes, or fed Election, or whatever; although they do play a part).
In lay terms, the jury convicted Trump for falsifying documents to conceal a conspiracy to unlawfully promote his presidential candidacy… Justice Merchan instructed the jury that it had to find unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt the “elements” of the § 175.10 offense [falsifying business records] and the intent to participate in the § 17-152 conspiracy [election interference/the other crime].
…
Here’s a nice example of where reporting on the trial went sideways. After Justice Merchan instructed the jury, Fox News correspondent John Roberts hastily tweeted that jurors need not “agree on the crime” and that “4 could agree on one crime, 4 on a different one, and the other 4 on another. But Roberts had failed to appreciate the distinction between the elements of a § 175.10 offense and the “unlawful means” of carrying out a § 17-152 conspiracy.”
The article covers a ton (Merchan political donation; Appeals; Prosecutorial discretion; difference between elements of a crime and the means to carry out that crime; and wacky theories) and more, and is worth reading or at least referencing in the future.
I don’t suppose the jurors were polled on which specific underlying crime they thought applied? Probably not, given that the judge had ruled that it was irrelevant, but it might put to rest these “But they weren’t unanimous!” blatherings.
Well, they returned a unanimous verdict of guilty on all counts. Doesn’t that mean that they all thought he committed all of the underlying crimes?
Purely IMHO, I’d say no. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were a real difference of opinion, and some of them were quietly grateful that they could agree he’d done something.
My suspicion is that they all agreed on the election interference one, because I think that one is the most cut-and-dried. And then some of them might also have agreed on the other ones. But I don’t see many people thinking that he did do one of the others, but did not do the election interference.
If that were so, and there were a record of it, we could point to it and say “See, it was unanimous anyway”.
That wouldn’t be standard procedure. If the court needed all jurors to agree on a question, that question would be on the jury form. (or at least they’d be instructed that they had to be unanimous on the issue). Polling the jury confirms the jury form was filled out correctly, but it’s not a substitute for getting necessary questions answered.
It means they were unanimous that he was guilty of all counts to a degree that they were felonies. That’s the only kind of unanimity that the law requires (despite protests otherwise by Trump defenders). They may have differed among each other in how those charges qualified as felonies but that’s fine.
If you had a unanimous murder conviction in another case, the jurors might have drawn different conclusions on the underlying facts there too. Maybe they weren’t in agreement as to motive, maybe they don’t all believe a particular witness, and so on. But as long as they all agree the defendant is guilty those details should be largely irrelevant.
This is a bit like inception (the movie). It goes down three layers.
Falsified Business Records becomes a felony if you do it with intent to conceal another crime, which was only this one crime → NY Election Interference, which part of its element requires it be done with “unlawful means”, which were → whatever the juror thought was unlawful: taxes, election interference, falsifying other business records, etc.
There’s no need to poll even the NY Election Interference because it’s built into the jury charge/crime and a guilty verdict required the jury to be unanimous it was the predicate crime. There’s no need to poll the “means” of committing that crime because that’s not a thing. It would be like polling the jury on how they thought a criminal murdered someone - interesting for sure (especially if they had differing ideas), but not necessary, only necessary that the jury was convinced that person murdered someone.
Edit: ha! Atamasama used murder example too. I didn’t see that before I posted. Great minds and all that.
(emphasis added)
What is the basis for saying NY Election Interference was the only crime under consideration for augmenting Falsifying Business Records to a felony?
From the Jury Instructions. NYT link here (if this doesn’t work, just google it to find the PDF). The relevant part is on pg 30 of the jury instructions.
Here:
NEW YORK ELECTION LAW § 17-152 PREDICATE
The People allege that the other crime the defendant
intended to commit, aid, or conceal is a violation of New York
Election Law section 17-152.Section 17-152 of the New York Election Law provides that
any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the
election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and
which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties
thereto, shall be guilty of conspiracy to promote or prevent an
election.Under our law, a person is guilty of such a conspiracy
when, with intent that conduct be performed that would promote
or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful
means, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in
or cause the performance of such conduct.
The jury charge/instructions then goes on to list ways/crimes that can be the unlawful means:
Although you must conclude unanimously that the
defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any
person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be
unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to
> promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office
> by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations
> of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;
> (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of
> tax laws.
And then it goes on to describe what those entail.
So, Falsifying Business Records → (intent to commit) NY Election Interference → (by using) Unlawful Means. The jury must be unanimous on the first two (they are elements to the crime Trump was charged with), but not the last (just some unlawful means they can consider in how Trump intended to carry out the NY election interference crime).
Tried to get it with edits, but missed out on time so I’ll double post…I did not understand there was only one predicate/underlying crime until after the verdict. I thought there was several.
The reason I thought that is because there were. Bragg formally offered up several (the ones we know) potential underlying crimes, NY Election Interference being one of those (and Fed Election, Taxes, etc being the others) prior to the trial starting.
I don’t think Trump nor the Judge knew it would be just one until after the trial started. I’d like to verify when exactly, but it was certainly late in the game so to speak.
I also don’t know if this was the Judge’s idea (cleaner on appeal with jury being unanimous on all the elements) or Bragg’s (same reason; or better story; something else). I’d be interested to know if it’s possible to know right now.
OK, I missed that news. That happened?
Trump opened his mouth 
Specifically he opened his mouth during his sentencing interview and apparently did a decent enough job of parroting the correct script required by the state of NY to show remorse.
Though there are naked mole rats who have lived their whole lives beneath the surface the earth and never encountered a human who know he’s not being sincere.
Has there been a story about this? These interviews are confidential, so the only people who would be talking about what happened would be Trump or his lawyer.
Donald Trump completed his mandatory presentencing interview Monday after less than 30 minutes of routine, uneventful questions and answers, a person familiar with the matter told The Associated Press
Okay, so where’s the bit about him doing “a decent enough job of parroting the correct script required by the state of NY to show remorse?”
An unnamed source gave a vague detail about a confidential process, and the only thing it does is signal that the whole thing was no big deal and Trump breezed in and out of it. Who is invested in that kind of signaling?
Awaiting sentencing, does Trump have any restrictions on travel or associating with other criminals?
Likely some but the only one I know of is that he cant leave the country. I believe he surrendered his passport.