Jump to content

gernblansten

Full Members
  • Posts

    799
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gernblansten

  1. Ignore my prior post, it appears this is what they're talking about:

    Quote

     

    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. Knowledge of a conspiracy does not by itself make the defendant a coconspirator. The defendant must intend that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means. Intent means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with the intent that conduct be performed that would promote or prevent the election of a person to public office by unlawful means when his or her conscious objective or purpose is that such conduct be performed. Evidence that defendant was present when others agreed to engage in the performance of a crime does not by itself show that he personally agreed to engage in the conspiracy.

    “By 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 unlawful means: (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.

     

     

  2. Maybe this is what they're talking about:

    Quote

    Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.

    It's helpful to read the entire instruction. It's page 25 and 26. 

    Quote

     

    Accessorial Liability

    Our law recognizes that two or more individuals can act jointly to commit a crime, and that in certain circumstances, each can be held criminally liable for the acts of the others. In that situation, those persons can be said to be "acting in concert" with each other.

    Our law defines the circumstances under which one person may be criminally liable for the conduct of another. That definition is as follows: When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the state of mind required for the commission of that offense, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.

    Under that definition, mere presence at the scene of a crime, even with knowledge that the crime is taking place, or mere association with a perpetrator of a crime, does not by itself make a defendant criminally liable for that crime.

    In order for the defendant to be held criminally liable for the conduct of another which constitutes an offense, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) That he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned, or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct, and (2) That he did so with the state of mind required for the commission of the offense. 

    If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is criminally liable for the conduct of another, the extent or degree of the defendant's participation in the crime does not matter. A defendant proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be criminally liable for the conduct of another in the commission of a crime is as guilty of the crime as if the defendant, personally, had committed every act constituting the crime.

    The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the state of mind required for the commission of the crime, and either personally, or by acting in concert with another person, committed each of the remaining elements of the crime.

    Your verdict, on each count you consider, whether guilty or not guilty, must be unanimous. In order to find the defendant guilty, however, you need not be unanimous on whether the defendant committed the crime personally, or by acting in concert with another, or both.

     

    Of course, they could be talking about some other paragraph in the 55 pages of instructions. https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

    • Hook 'Em 2
  3. "The prosecution has the burden of proof and they failed so miserably, every scholar is saying they proved nothing, there is not crime, so there was no reason to testify in a case that's already been won." - likely to be said a lot before next Tuesday

    • Haha 1
  4. Zingerman's pastrami reuben seemed a bit light on the meat for $22. Blimpy Burger has tiny patties with seemingly a quarter of a slice of cheese on it. I think you need three to five patties to make a substantial burger. My recollection is a single patty is around the size that'd fit on a King's Hawaiin slider roll. Onion rings were good. Beer Grotto is enjoyable. The law library is impressive. 

  5. 6 minutes ago, The Dog said:

    Yeah just like what happened with the E Jean Carroll defamation cases. MAGA stopped those so surely there will be one who won't go along with this one.

    Right?

    No one ever knows what a jury will do. Preponderance of the evidence with a nine person jury in a civil trial versus beyond a reasonable doubt with a twelve person jury in a criminal trial isn't really comparable. O.J. was found liable in one and not guilty in another. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  6. 2 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

    Sorry I didn't get pics but I gave myself food poisoning the other day by eating some old taco meat with some eggs (with pico and cheese). Threw up for about 28 hours.

    You kids be safe out there.

    Get this man two scripts of snatch and 72 ounces of Bud Light, STAT!

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
    • Drool 1
  7. 38 minutes ago, CoTex said:

    From time to time I travel for work and, as fate would have it, I’m at the Colcord hotel in downtown OKC.  
    Next door is a tall building with a bar on top so, if it starts to get sporty I’ll do some on location reporting.

    Was at the Colcord last week. Dinner and drinks at Vast, the tall building place you mentioned. Go on up there and take pictures of the incoming doom. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 49 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    Note:  I actually have to go do some solid work here in about half an hour, so...there will be a slight delay in the proceedings.

    The judge is now scolding the defense lawyers. He is frustrated because they wish to lodge objections related to the witness, Jeffrey McConney, but that they did not tell him yesterday, when they learned who the witness was, that they would have objections. Justice Merchan has objected to what he sees as efforts from the defense to delay the trial, often by taking action last minute.

    spacer.png

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Haha 4
    • Rage+1 1
  9. 3 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

    Total amount paid out to date...

    Fuck all

    figure_with_empty_pockets_800_wht.jpg

    I suppose you’re excluding the bonds. Now explain how him paying “fuck all” so far is due to special treatment and how anyone else would have already been made to pay. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  10. A little bit of the special treatment in the legal system:

    "Former President Donald Trump claims millions of illegal votes cost him the 2020 election. However, all but three of his 64 election challenges failed. His three legal victories, all in Pennsylvania, threw out 270 provisional ballots lacking signatures, separated Election Day provisional ballots from those cast afterward, and moved back Pa.’s deadline for absentee voters to present voter ID by three days."

    https://www.witf.org/2022/09/01/these-republicans-did-a-deep-dive-into-2020-election-lawsuits-including-in-pa-heres-why-most-of-them-failed/

    NY State Fraud Case: $355M judgment against Trump

    Carrol I Defamation and Assault: $5M judgment against Trump

    Carrol II Defamation: $83.3M judgment against Trump

    • Hook 'Em 5
  11. 32 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

    Back to NYC, and I'm going to go fetch some lunch:

    Joshua Steinglass, a prosecutor, just brought up Hope Hicks, Trump’s former communications aide, asking about an email chain that was forwarded to her the day after the Access Hollywood tape came out. Steinglass also asks Pecker if he’s ever known Trump to use email. The answer was no (although Trump has, in the last 18 months or so, started texting with people for the first time).

     

    A lot of key characters are being introduced right now, including Stormy Daniels, a.k.a. Stephanie Clifford, whom Pecker identifies as a porn star. Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, asks Pecker: “How do you know of her?” Then he laughs and says he’ll ask the question in a different way. He takes a slightly safer approach, and Pecker begins to describe how his employees came to be in contact with Daniels.

     

    David Pecker describes an urgent call from The National Enquirer's editor, Dylan Howard, in October 2016, in which he was informed that Stormy Daniels was shopping a story of a sexual affair with Trump for $120,000.

    spacer.png

    • Haha 6
×
×
  • Create New...