Trump found guilty on all 34 counts

[Postvieww]

Since the turn of the century LGBTQIA+ folk have won in the Court system and several SCOTUS decisions have made it clear that the government cannot unduly burden them, (making LGBTQIA+ full fledged citizenship with all of the rights and privileges attached thereto).

Well we can can just disagree on one aspect of this. I am not here to tell anyone what to do in their private lives BUT when government says its alright for a natural birth man with a penis to share a bathroom with females someone is off of their rocker. Their false claim of the right to do so is ignoring the rights of females who do not want to see this crap in their bathrooms. Don't waste your time trying to convince me this is just ,right or fair, it is government pushing societal change not wanted by the majority of reasonable people.

Choosing the bathroom of their choice is not part of full citizenship!

 

[Postvieww]

Because everybody in New York thinks Trump is a jerk? But that doesn't necessarily bias a Jury. A fair minded person can evaluate the evidence fairly even though he may think the defendant is a jerk.

And I have a bridge to sell to you!

 

[ozso]

Because everybody in New York thinks Trump is a jerk? But that doesn't necessarily bias a Jury. A fair minded person can evaluate the evidence fairly even though he may think the defendant is a jerk.

Manhattan isn't the only place in New York that has a courthouse. Trials are moved to other areas in the state where the jury pool is less likely to be biased all the time. The defense requested that. It was flat out denied.

 

[Postvieww]

And yet, in the State he currently resides, the judge there indefinitely postponed the documents trial.
Where’s the complaints that Trump isn’t getting his day in court there, since he’s sooo “innocent“ and all.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't know what the process is aside from my experience in being summoned for jury duty. (Which I always get out of due to my brain issues. To every cloud there's a silver lining haha).

Step 1: A sufficient pool of people is randomly selected for jury duty; typically from drivers license or voter registration records.

Step 2: Potential jurors show up to court on their assigned day and are randomly assigned a number. This is the jury pool.

Step 3: If there are any cases, the judge's office will call down to the jury pool and request a certain number of potential jurors. They don't know the identities of anyone in the jury pool at this point, let alone which numbers those identities would correspond to. Neither are they allowed to pick which juror numbers are sent up. The clerk managing the jury pool does that. So, if the judge calls down for 20 jurors, he might get jurors 1-20, 10-29, even numbers from 2-40, etc.

Step 4: The defense and prosecution collaborate with the judge to remove any unsuitable jurors. This can be through interviews, a questionnaire, or both.

At least, that's how it's worked when I've had jury duty. Not in New York, to be fair, but I imagine the process is similar in all US jurisdictions.

 

[Pommer]

Well we can can just disagree on one aspect of this. I am not here to tell anyone what to do in their private lives BUT when government says its alright for a natural birth man with a penis to share a bathroom with females someone is off of their rocker. Their false claim of the right to do so is ignoring the rights of females who do not want to see this crap in their bathrooms. Don't waste your time trying to convince me this is just ,right or fair, it is government pushing societal change not wanted by the majority of reasonable people.

Choosing the bathroom of their choice is not part of full citizenship!

I don’t actually care whom uses what restroom.

 

[BCP1928]

And I have a bridge to sell to you!

I sat on a jury once, was foreman of it, in fact. We all thought the defendant was a jerk (we didn't know him previously, of course, but on the stand he acted a right A H. We all suspected that he probably was guilty. But the Prosecution, in our estimation, made a very bad case and didn't prove it. Too bad, we had to let him go.

 

[ozso]

Step 1: A sufficient pool of people is randomly selected for jury duty; typically from drivers license or voter registration records.

Step 2: Potential jurors show up to court on their assigned day and are randomly assigned a number. This is the jury pool.

Step 3: If there are any cases, the judge's office will call down to the jury pool and request a certain number of potential jurors. They don't know the identities of anyone in the jury pool at this point, let alone which numbers those identities would correspond to. Neither are they allowed to pick which juror numbers are sent up. The clerk managing the jury pool does that. So, if the judge calls down for 20 jurors, he might get jurors 1-20, 10-29, even numbers from 2-40, etc.

Step 4: The defense and prosecution collaborate with the judge to remove any unsuitable jurors. This can be through interviews, a questionnaire, or both.

At least, that's how it's worked when I've had jury duty. Not in New York, to be fair, but I imagine the process is similar in all US jurisdictions.

I'd hazard to guess there are more nuances and factors involved than just the basic format. I mean if it was all that easy to figure out, I'd go take the state bar exam.

 

[ozso]

I sat on a jury once, was foreman of it, in fact. We all thought the defendant was a jerk (we didn't know him previously, of course, but on the stand he acted a right A H. We all suspected that he probably was guilty. But the Prosecution, in our estimation, made a very bad case and didn't prove it. Too bad, we had to let him go.

Did you all have a years long daily dislike of him and feared he would ruin the nation if his plans weren't thwarted?

 

[A2SG]

False! He denied a change of venue and there for he chose the jury pool!

You can't get a change of venue just because you don't like the demographics of where the crime was committed.

-- A2SG, change of venue is only granted for specific, valid reasons...

 

[BCP1928]

Did you all have a years long daily dislike of him and feared he would ruin the nation if his plans weren't thwarted?

If the jury truly was biased against Trump they would have acquitted him.

 

[Pommer]

Who appointed Ken Starr when he investigated the Clintons for three years?
(Actually it was a three-judge panel who appointed him)
The Justice Department has “regulations” (which are the “laws” of that department, which are created by that department, in furtherance of being about to carry out its duties in service of the government).

I ain’t gonna hunt down the reference but it should be in here somewhere, as to how an “independent counsel” is appointed

 

[ozso]

If the jury truly was biased against Trump they would have acquitted him.

How is that supposed to make sense?

 

[A2SG]

I read it this morning! If you cannot find it NOT MY PROBLEM.

Hey, it's your claim. If you don't feel it's worth backing up, why should I think it's worth considering?

-- A2SG, still not doing your work for you...

 

[ozso]

You can't get a change of venue just because you don't like the demographics of where the crime was committed.

If that was the case there wouldn't be numerous instances where a trial was moved elsewhere to get a fairer jury pool.

-- A2SG, change of venue is only granted for specific, valid reasons...

Yeah, to go where the jury pool is likely to be less biased. Surely you've read or heard on the news that so-in-so's case was moved to a different city so that he could get a fair trial. I've heard it countless times before.

 

[BCP1928]

How is that supposed to make sense?

In convicting him, they made a martyr of him. They had to know that would happen, but they went ahead and convicted him anyway.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I'd hazard to guess there are more nuances and factors involved than just the basic format.

Possibly, but the whole point of the jury selection process is to minimize the chance of bias, or even the appearance of bias. As such, the jury pool is isolated from the judge and attorneys as much as possible - to the point of having a separate entrance to the courthouse (at least when I've done it). A situation in which the judge is allowed to hand-pick potential jurors would be grounds for an immediate mistrial (or an easy appeal) as it introduces at least the appearance of potential bias.

I mean if it was all that easy to figure out, I'd go take the state bar exam.

Jury selection is hardly the only duty of an attorney. Everything they do need not be completely inscrutable.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I read it this morning! If you cannot find it NOT MY PROBLEM.

Then you of course know that one of the jurors stated they only got their news from Truth Social and X. How many liberal Trump haters do you think actually regularly use those platforms for their news? Convicted Felon Trump even referred to this juror as "My juror." Yet, that juror agreed with all the other jurors on each and every guilty verdict on every charge. It only takes 1 juror to acquit or cause a mistrial and this was the one. But they didn't. Why is that do you think?

 

[A2SG]

Yeah by asking me what I said was based on when you should've known it was based on Blanche's statements.

If he was unable to find even a single unbiased juror throughout the voie dire process, then he's not doing his job very well.

But, I guess that does give Trump a basis for appeal: incompetent representation. Maybe he'll get a new trial out of it.

So you don't really know much about it despite repeating voie dire to sound more knowledgeable.

I know enough to know what I'm talking about.

A brief visit to the internet where you picked up that nifty term.

Actually, I've known it for a while now. I've even served on a jury myself.

Oh look there it is again.

Based on no real knowledge.

Show me where I got any facts wrong.

That's how lawyer Blanche who was there described it. So that's what I'm going with.

Right... it's just him who doesn't know it

He's biased, of course. He lost what might be the biggest case of his career.

And there's a good chance Trump will appeal based on Blanche's inadequate representation.

-- A2SG, gee, I wonder who will be hired for the retrial....

 

[ozso]

Possibly, but the whole point of the jury selection process is to minimize the chance of bias, or even the appearance of bias. As such, the jury pool is isolated from the judge and attorneys as much as possible. A situation in which the judge is allowed to hand-pick potential jurors would be grounds for an immediate mistrial (or an easy appeal) as it introduces at least the appearance of potential bias.

Well apparently that wasn't a priority in this case considering the judge should have recused himself for starters according to some.

Jury selection is hardly the only duty of an attorney.

I meant all the nuances and complexities involved in the whole legal machine.