Jump to content

Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty


Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

he's just not funny. good effort, I guess.

 

3 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

yeah, three year letterman's one trick is past its expiration date.

Gary Peterson OTOH

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)

Letterman is like the 7 year-old kid who lands a joke and then proceeds to hammer it 4 more times expecting the same response.

Edited by TexasHooch
Posted
56 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

Is there a general rule of thumb here - the longer the deliberations, the more likely a guilty verdict or vis versa or is that just on SVU?

Super quick verdict would be concerning, as would three days with no verdict. A super quick verdict means they did not take the time to go through the 30 or 40 separate charges and the elements for each.     Days without progress means there is a hold out, and there would be word to the judge who would respond with an approved dynamite charge. 

The jury not asking any questions of the court while in deliberation the next 24 hours would seem to me to be a positive thing for the prosecution. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
26 minutes ago, The Dog said:

Let's see who he pulls offsides with this one:

 

 

I think you are actually this guy because who else would keep propping up his tweets as hilarious?

 

(I kid…sort of)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Letterman is like the 7 year-old kid who lands a joke and then proceeds to hammer it 4 more times expecting the same response.

Woah, that's not fair. Sure his CBS show got stale towards the end, but you could argue that Late Night revolutionized TV talk shows. And who doesn't love a good top ten list?

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Law dawgs, If the threshold for a Felony is that it was done to cover up a crime, do you really need to agree on what exactly that crime was, or could you have 4 jurors who say "it was this", 4 who say "it was that" and 4 who say "it was the other"?

Posted
On 5/16/2024 at 3:09 PM, DixonHur said:

What is she even talking about?  Everyone knows what crime he's accused of committing.

Is she just saying that he's committed so many crimes that he's not sure which one this is?  

I thought all criminal convictions required a unanimous jury verdict. 

Posted

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
Posted
17 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

Law dawgs, If the threshold for a Felony is that it was done to cover up a crime, do you really need to agree on what exactly that crime was, or could you have 4 jurors who say "it was this", 4 who say "it was that" and 4 who say "it was the other"?

I have seen law dawgs say that they do not have to agree on the crime. 

Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I have seen law dawgs say that they do not have to agree on the crime. 

Link to Jury instructions...

https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People v. DJT Jury Instructions and Charges FINAL 5-23-24.pdf

 

From that link:

"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."

 

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"

-A. Lincoln

Edited by locodos
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

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.

 

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I have seen law dawgs say that they do not have to agree on the crime. 

I'm seeing due process arguments all over twitter, but it's twitter.

This doesn't answer my question as to whether it's proper, but this diagram is helpful to understand the instruction.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, tokamak said:

You all damn well know it's going to be Not Guilty all the way down. Why are you doing this to yourselves?

bet you $50 its not

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, tokamak said:

You all damn well know it's going to be Not Guilty all the way down. Why are you doing this to yourselves?

You must have forgotten that most here are Longhorn fans.

  • Rage+1 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, Foosters said:

bet you $50 its not

 

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'll sanction this. 

 

I'm in if hung juries go my way. In other words - any guilty verdict, @Foosters wins. Any other outcome, I win.

 

Posted
Just now, tokamak said:

 

 

I'm in if hung juries go my way. In other words - any guilty verdict, @Foosters wins. Any other outcome, I win.

 

There are 34 counts, right? You may want to rethink your side of the bet. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, locodos said:

I need to set up a pay for pray operation.  $5 gets you 20, 5 minute prayers or some shit

 

You’ll make a fortune if you get Elmo’s racist AI thing to crank them out. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, tokamak said:

 

 

I'm in if hung juries go my way. In other words - any guilty verdict, @Foosters wins. Any other outcome, I win.

 

Ok, but that's an entirely different bet?

You claimed that we all know "damn well" that it will be NG's all the way down. Which means 408 votes for NG, and 0 votes for guilty. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

You’ll make a fortune if you get Elmo’s racist AI thing to crank them out. 

I think you have to have AI read them out... or cheaper still, txt to voice.  After all the payers are custom, and the txt is uploaded to the platform buy the sucker user.   Otherwise the hiring and writing the job profile is just too awkward.

 

Posted
12 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Ok, but that's an entirely different bet?

You claimed that we all know "damn well" that it will be NG's all the way down. Which means 408 votes for NG, and 0 votes for guilty. 

I think hung jury is equivalent to not guilty for Trump, politically. It feeds into his "witch hunt" narrative and continues to drag the case out forever.

I'm just incredulous that anything meaningful is ever going to stick to him. We've had that football pulled out from under our foot too many times already.

Posted (edited)

I'll bet $50 with the proceeds to ActBlue on tokamak's side to the first person that wants that action. 100% Hung jury and we both donate?

Edited by SimonBolivar
Posted
2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't realize that wouldn't be "not guilty".  The question stands:  would he walk or would he have to be re-tried?

Hung jury leaves open the possibility of retrial.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

I thought all criminal convictions required a unanimous jury verdict. 

They have to be unanimous on guilty or not guilty.  If there are varied manners and means by which the crime can be committed, they may not have to be unanimous as to how he committed it (depending on the charges in question).  

Edited by dcbc
Posted
11 minutes ago, RDCanecutter said:

Enough with this betting jazz. Everybody just meet someplace and fight. Last man standing gets to say what the fight was about.

Big Brother Fight GIF by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Just remember, he wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, dcbc said:

Just remember, he wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire.

Agree, unless they're russian chicks. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, dcbc said:

Just remember, he wouldn't piss on his supporters if they were on fire.

But he might when they aren't

#Steeledossier

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
53 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

Uhm, do they not remember how many fervent Trump supporters acted towards Chinese Americans during the early days of Covid?  Strange bedfellows indeed...

  • Haha 1
Posted

Jury note has four requests:

1. Pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with Trump while in a meeting

2. Pecker's testimony regarding the trump tower meeting where the conspiracy was agreed upon

3. Cohen's testimony regarding the same trump tower meeting

4. Pecker testimony about a decision not to finalize one of the aspects of the deal with Karen McDougal

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
19 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

Surly is awesome. Texas coming to the SEC makes us better in every sport, and increases our academic prestige. I think only 3 or 4 SEC institutions are AAU members. I know this won’t be popular, but Texas and Florida are very similar in academics and athletics, granted not with your past history. Both Big-Brother land grant universities, both hated by the A&Ms and FSUs of the world because we are what they ain’t.  

Thanks for the kind words. 

Now why wouldn't that be popular? We're very similar, though I think not as similar as we are with Meatchicken.



×
×
  • Create New...