LiberalLesbo wrote:

The judge's instructions and the process are explained rather nicely in a podcast by two American lawyers called "Law and Chaos"

Now just comes sentencing... we can only hope...[/size][/color][/b][/center]

Quote:

We are unapologetically left-of-center, so if you’re looking for some Joe Manchin, “No Labels”, bothsides bullshit, you’re out of luck.

Quote:

Nor will we be serving up Occupy Democrats-style alarmism. What we will give you is the kind of in-depth writing that helps you become a better consumer of legal news. We’ll read the original court documents and link to them here, because that stuff belongs to you, too.

And yes, for the foreseeable future, that means talking about Donald Trump a fair bit. That criminal and his cronies are throwing vats of ketchup at the wall in an attempt to evade justice and cheat their way back into the White House. From the “Clinton socks case” to the “IRONCLAD disclaimer clause” to howls about being denied his First Amendment rights or a trial by jury, Trump’s lawyers are spewing garbage legal arguments and hoping that you won’t be able to tell the difference.

We can tell the difference, and we will do our damnedest to help you cut through the BS.

But even when Trump is gone — to prison or some place hotter — we’re still going to be stuck in a country where the minority party is desperately trying to hang onto power and inflict its will on the rest of us. Obviously, the Supreme Court is an ongoing disaster and will be for decades. But Republicans have taken over the federal judiciary and state courts, and they’re gearing up to dismantle civil rights and rig the system for their wealthy donors forever.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

B4ND1T69 wrote:

I read written law, not law explained how i want to hear it

I got ya B4NDY, the relevant citation is:

Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 111 S. Ct. 2491 (1991)

https://casetext●com/case/schad-v-arizona

Where a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court held that while agreement among jurors is required as to the elements of an offense, it is not required as to the means. That is, the jurors must agree as to which crime was committed, but not necessarily how it was committed. Which is what I said up above. Have a read of the written law babes, don't take my explanation

Luvya too

LiberalLesbo wrote:

Oh B4NDY, I do believe that the written law says differently babes, the Arizona judgement was upheld by the U.S. Supreme court as follows...

I'll stop there, because I like this forum as a fun place for cartoons and jokes, not a legal debate by a couple of non-lawyers

😘😘😘 ❤️❤️❤️

LiberalLesbo wrote:

B4ND1T69 wrote:

... ...errr...due process

<snipped> everybody on the right is a peado basically

If it weren't so serious, it really would be fucking hysterical. I might even laugh at the dancing baby-man with the idiotic tie

Don't let your voice be silent......Vote NOW!!!

LiberalLesbo wrote:

B4ND1T69 wrote:

<snipped> every judge on the right is a doo-doo-head

You really don't know me at all That is most definitely not  what I said, or what I would ever  say. Inventing what I have to say, so that you can ask me to calm down is a bit silly. I'm far from excited,
<snipped>
I was  talking about the law B4ND1T. In fact, of the two of us, I was the only one referring to established law---the written law you said you liked to engage with---using case citations and quotations from the jurisprudence of established US Supreme Court rulings (i.e., written law ). Those citations addressed your original criticisms of the jury instructions in New York, and the seeming ambiguity of the unanimous/non-unanimous verdict/s.

LiberalLesbo wrote:

B4ND1T, absolutely I cited the SCOTUS, their ruling sets the precedent for how the lower courts must proceed. Hence Schad v. Arizona being upheld in 1991 was the appropriate case for the NY judge to follow when advising the jury reference the unanimity question. Merchan's jurisprudence follows established law to the letter. It'll be interesting to see what happens at appeal stages as they progress. If Merchan's management of the case was faulty in any way, you can bet the last coin in your pocket that will be exploited for all it's worth.

From Judges Instructions wrote:

"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,"

Quote:

"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,"