Trump's "Stormy" next few weeks/months

[TysonLPrice]

I was going to post what is below in the OJ Thread but I think Trump's New York trial on the hush money deserves its own thread.

Wind the clock forward few decades or so and starting Monday is another "Trial of he Century" with Trump. And it will be televised, if that term is relevant anymore. Weeks of day to day coverage. And I think one jury member will "save" Trump.

OJ had 12 but Trump only needs one...

The show starts tomorrow...hang on tight. I'm betting on jury nullification.

https://www.usatoday.com/story

[Steve R Jones]

"Trump's wife got so mad at her husband she packed his bags and told him to get out. As he walked to the door she yelled, 'I hope you die a long, slow, painful death.' He turned around and said, 'So, you want me to stay?'"

[FunkyDexter]

And I think one jury member will "save" Trump.

This is interesting. I always assumed that you needed unanimous consent from the jury for a conviction but I did jury service a couple of months ago and it turns out you don't. Our jury was split 10 to 2 and nobody was moving. The judge advised that that was sufficient and the conviction was recorded.

I honestly don't know if this is a UK only thing, I don't even know if it was a Crown Court only thing, but it might not be as simple as a single juror being able to save him.


Edit> Found a link about it. About half way down the page under the "A Unanimous Verdict" section: "The Judge will always seek a unanimous verdict first. That is a verdict upon which all the jurors are agreed, so either guilty or not guilty. In the early stages of a jury considering its verdict, a Judge cannot accept a majority verdict. If the jury are completely stuck the judge can accept a majority decision."

[TysonLPrice]

CHATGPT:

When a jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict, it is referred to as a "hung jury." In such cases, the judge may issue what's known as an "Allen charge" or a "dynamite charge." This is a set of instructions given by the judge to encourage the jurors to continue deliberating and to try to reach a verdict. The goal is to ensure that the jury has fully explored all possible avenues of agreement before declaring a mistrial.

I can picture it now. To the Trump world the person that hangs the jury will be the hero that saved Trump from illegal persecution. To the anti-Trump world that person will be considered a despicable American that nullified the judicial system for a criminal.

[sapator]

No Jury in Greece. That helps as the rotten government plots will go unpunished easily.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have no idea how a jury trial can be fair in the case of a Trump trial. Can anybody be impartial about a guy who's whole purpose is division?

[TysonLPrice]

I have no idea how a jury trial can be fair in the case of a Trump trial. Can anybody be impartial about a guy who's whole purpose is division?

I gave some thought to that. I think he has been a criminal most of his adult life. I think he is despicable. But I would listen to the evidence and the law as instructed and would be fair on that account. What would I do to him if it was up to me? I don't feel like getting banned.

[Lord Orwell]

don't don't need concensus for a grand jury, or for a civil case, in the U.S. You do need one to give a conviction of "guilty".

[dilettante]

I have no idea how a jury trial can be fair in the case of a Trump trial. Can anybody be impartial about a guy who's whole purpose is division?

This is a pretty telling remark.

His purpose isn't "division" but instead returning power to the people by wresting it from the hands of the duopolitan cabal. In this Trump has actually proven quite the uniter. Sure, he appeals to some crazies, but that's tiny compared to the normal citizens who merely want to get the country back on track and live their lives and have no other tool by which to accomplish this.

Hyperbole undermines your argument... if there is one there at all. "Division" does not mean "opposes my wonton self-interest at the expense of others" as you imply. Why should people just bow down to further exploitation and abuse?

You need to think outside The Bubble. The guy won office (at least) once, and has a pretty good shot again. All without his hands on the reins of the ballot process. Not much of a "divider."

[Shaggy Hiker]

That's not a telling remark. If you have a very public person, who darn near everybody has an opinion about, how can they ever get an impartial jury? Who is your pool of people? Those who voted for him to be president? those who voted against him to be president? Those who didn't vote at all? There are pretty strong arguments against any of those three groups being on the jury, and yet those three groups make up the total of the population. This kind of issue comes up with any jury trial of a public figure, and no figure is more public than a former president.

You may also be right that the number of crazies are small. The only ones I know who voted for him who are not also on this forum, did so because he explicitly supported their racist views. They supported him because he gave them permission to feel that people who look different from them are inferior.

I realize there are likely others for whom that isn't their reason for supporting him, I just haven't met them in person.

On the other hand, you have made me realize that, at least for me, the country has never been more on track than it is now. I thought I was just a working guy getting by as best he could. You've helped me realize that things have gone pretty darn well for me. For that reason, I've increased donations to the local foodbank and some other groups that you might not approve of. I can't lift all boats, but maybe I can lift a few, a bit.