NY: Trump on Trial!

[Ljube]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

But again, this conflicts with Redban's immediately previous post, where he links to the Politico article claiming that Trump's lawyers would have to file a motion that the misdemeanor charges be included as an option before the jury could even consider them.  This is the uncertainty I'm trying to resolve.

[Ljube]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

But again, this conflicts with Redban's immediately previous post, where he links to the Politico article claiming that Trump's lawyers would have to file a motion that the misdemeanor charges be included as an option before the jury could even consider them.  This is the uncertainty I'm trying to resolve.

Yes, that is an option, and the defense will pursue it depending on how the trial goes.
But if you ask me, there is no harm in including these lesser charges as they give the jury an easy way out.

[emailking]

If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

To clarify, this is conjecture. The judge has no obligation to dismiss a misdemeanor conviction.

[Ljube]

If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

To clarify, this is conjecture. The judge has no obligation to dismiss a misdemeanor conviction.

If he doesn't dismiss it, the appeals court will.

[emailking]

Also not necessarily the case. Consider Casey Anthony was acquitted of murder but convicted of 4 misdemeanor counts of lying to police. And the judge sentenced her to the max for each one and ran them consecutively and she got 4 years in prison for that. (With time served she was only in jail a few more weeks but she got the absolute max.) 2 counts were later overturned but 2 survived appeal. Courts don't just outright dismiss misdemeanor convictions when they believe the defendant has done something wrong.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

But again, this conflicts with Redban's immediately previous post, where he links to the Politico article claiming that Trump's lawyers would have to file a motion that the misdemeanor charges be included as an option before the jury could even consider them.  This is the uncertainty I'm trying to resolve.

Yes, that is an option, and the defense will pursue it depending on how the trial goes.
But if you ask me, there is no harm in including these lesser charges as they give the jury an easy way out.

This response doesn't make things clear at all.
My specific question is: Is it an option for the jury as the charges stand right now, or it is only an option if the defense files a motion to make it an option?

[Dereich]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

But again, this conflicts with Redban's immediately previous post, where he links to the Politico article claiming that Trump's lawyers would have to file a motion that the misdemeanor charges be included as an option before the jury could even consider them.  This is the uncertainty I'm trying to resolve.

Yes, that is an option, and the defense will pursue it depending on how the trial goes.
But if you ask me, there is no harm in including these lesser charges as they give the jury an easy way out.

This response doesn't make things clear at all.
My specific question is: Is it an option for the jury as the charges stand right now, or it is only an option if the defense files a motion to make it an option?

Lesser-included offenses depend on the charging document and how its worded. There are times that there will technically be lesser included offenses that are applicable but both sides agree that the jury shouldn't be instructed on them; its often a strategic decision for both sides. Including a lesser gives them an easier out to convict the defendant of something (even if its only something minor) if they can't agree on the main charge...but not including the lesser also increases the chance that they'll just throw up their hands and say not guilty. Usually each state supreme court produces model instructions that will have the usual lesser-included offenses that the jury can be instructed on but I can't find New Yorks for this charge at the moment.

If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

To clarify, this is conjecture. The judge has no obligation to dismiss a misdemeanor conviction.

If he doesn't dismiss it, the appeals court will.

You'll have to explain the logic on this one. If its a valid lesser included offense (particularly one where defense counsel is asking for the lesser-offense jury instruction) what possible reason would the judge or an appeals court have to overturn the jury's verdict?

[Redban]

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Lesser-included offenses depend on the charging document and how its worded. There are times that there will technically be lesser included offenses that are applicable but both sides agree that the jury shouldn't be instructed on them; its often a strategic decision for both sides. Including a lesser gives them an easier out to convict the defendant of something (even if its only something minor) if they can't agree on the main charge...but not including the lesser also increases the chance that they'll just throw up their hands and say not guilty. Usually each state supreme court produces model instructions that will have the usual lesser-included offenses that the jury can be instructed on but I can't find New Yorks for this charge at the moment.

OK, I know all this....but are the lesser included charges included in this case as of right now?

Why am I getting so many replies to my question that don't answer my question?

[Redban]

OK, I know all this....but are the lesser included charges included in this case as of right now?

No, as of now, they're not. His team would have to ask, particularly if they want to pursue a defense where they argue that Trump committed a misdemeanor but not a felony. But as of now, the jury can't consider the misdemeanor lesser-offense

[Dereich]

Lesser-included offenses depend on the charging document and how its worded. There are times that there will technically be lesser included offenses that are applicable but both sides agree that the jury shouldn't be instructed on them; its often a strategic decision for both sides. Including a lesser gives them an easier out to convict the defendant of something (even if its only something minor) if they can't agree on the main charge...but not including the lesser also increases the chance that they'll just throw up their hands and say not guilty. Usually each state supreme court produces model instructions that will have the usual lesser-included offenses that the jury can be instructed on but I can't find New Yorks for this charge at the moment.

OK, I know all this....but are the lesser included charges included in this case as of right now?

Why am I getting so many replies to my question that don't answer my question?

Its probably not decided yet! Jury instructions (including those on which lessers the jury will be charged with) aren't finalized until the charge conference. I don't have any experience with a case expected to last as long as this one, but in my experience the charge conference isn't usually conducted until towards the end of trial. There are plenty of instructions (IE instructing the jury on not holding the defendant's silence against them or instructions on disregarding video edits) that aren't relevant until the end.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

I never thought I'd see Redban arguing that "really, Trump is woke".

[brucejoel99]

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

Noted TDS obsessive… *checks notes* … Marc Caputo

https://twitter.com/marcacaputo/status/1780246332793295002

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

I never thought I'd see Redban arguing that "really, Trump is woke".

One feels the reaction would be rather dissimilar if the only detail changed were that it was Joe Biden's mouth going slack as he fell asleep during his criminal trial on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to cover-up an unlawful pay-off scheme involving a pornstar.

[7,052,770]

Guys it's no big deal at all to fall asleep during Court! I've done it lots of times, and I've seen judges do it too!!!1

[NerdyBohemian]

Lmao the copium over sleepy Don.

[emailking]

I mean he has to do a lot of Truth Socialing late at night we shouldn't judge.

[brucejoel99]

Lmao the copium over sleepy Don.

Literally

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

[President Johnson]

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

Imagine the reactions if that happened to Biden in the midest of an important meeting.

[MRS DONNA SHALALA]

Re: the obsession ITT with "Trump was asleep!"

https://twitter.com/greta/status/1780654610060857556

From "maggie haberman is a dirty liar" to "omg guys everyone does it" in like two days, almost masterful.

[Ljube]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

But again, this conflicts with Redban's immediately previous post, where he links to the Politico article claiming that Trump's lawyers would have to file a motion that the misdemeanor charges be included as an option before the jury could even consider them.  This is the uncertainty I'm trying to resolve.

Yes, that is an option, and the defense will pursue it depending on how the trial goes.
But if you ask me, there is no harm in including these lesser charges as they give the jury an easy way out.

This response doesn't make things clear at all.
My specific question is: Is it an option for the jury as the charges stand right now, or it is only an option if the defense files a motion to make it an option?

Lesser-included offenses depend on the charging document and how its worded. There are times that there will technically be lesser included offenses that are applicable but both sides agree that the jury shouldn't be instructed on them; its often a strategic decision for both sides. Including a lesser gives them an easier out to convict the defendant of something (even if its only something minor) if they can't agree on the main charge...but not including the lesser also increases the chance that they'll just throw up their hands and say not guilty. Usually each state supreme court produces model instructions that will have the usual lesser-included offenses that the jury can be instructed on but I can't find New Yorks for this charge at the moment.

If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

To clarify, this is conjecture. The judge has no obligation to dismiss a misdemeanor conviction.

If he doesn't dismiss it, the appeals court will.

You'll have to explain the logic on this one. If its a valid lesser included offense (particularly one where defense counsel is asking for the lesser-offense jury instruction) what possible reason would the judge or an appeals court have to overturn the jury's verdict?

The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor charge has expired.
It is 2 years from commission of the crime.

[Redban]

The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor charge has expired.
It is 2 years from commission of the crime.

Statute of limitations was suspended by Cuomo for 1 year during Covid, and the statute of limitations apply only when the defendant is inside NY. Did Trump actually spend a total of 2 years inside NY from 2017-present, excluding 2020? He moved to Florida at some point in that span, and he resided in Washington obviously for 4 years

When the person is outside the state, they suspend the statute of limitations to combat people who flee the jurisdiction to avoid penalties. Trump obviously didn't flee the jurisdiction to avoid prosecution, but the law still applies if he was out-of-state to be President in D.C.

[Ljube]

The statute of limitations for a misdemeanor charge has expired.
It is 2 years from commission of the crime.

Statute of limitations was suspended by Cuomo for 1 year during Covid, and the statute of limitations apply only when the defendant is inside NY. Did Trump actually spend a total of 2 years inside NY from 2017-present, excluding 2020? He moved to Florida at some point in that span, and he resided in Washington obviously for 4 years

Hmmm, not sure about that.
He resided in New York before moving to Florida.

The Copilot says this: President Donald Trump officially changed his primary residence from New York to Florida on October 31, 2019.

[brucejoel99]

They’re apparently holding a Sandoval hearing. If the judge rules they can’t bring in prior bad acts, will they basically have to exclude Trump’s entire life?

Update:

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1780674978834256116https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1780678364849750437

[wbrocks67]

LMAO I can't believe we're really doing the "it's okay if Trump was sleeping, everyone does it! Sleepy Joe bad, Sleepy Trump good!" nonsense. And these people like to call Democrats delulu