Wow!! Never would have guessed this motion to dismiss was forthcoming ....
(no message)
Link: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71459120/59/united-states-v-comey/
Replies to: Wow!! Never would have guessed this motion to dismiss was forthcoming ....
They should "strenuously object" to the charges.
(no message)
(no message)
Re: .
(no message)
Re: .
(no message)
Predictable.
(no message)
Yes, what keen legal mind devised this plan? Surely he must be innocent if his lawyer made a motion
to dismiss!
Claims of Constitutional violations are separate and distinct from the presumption of innocence.
Constitutional challenges to the Government’s case or means of obtaining evidence are the starting point in one’s defense.
And yes, Comey — a smacked ass — is presumed innocent.
His Motion to Dismiss for Selective/Vindictive Prosecution is as meritorious as it gets.
quick question: what if he’s proven guilty as charged?
what will be your position then?
Opinion as the motion?
If Comey is convicted at trial, it would mean the trial judge denied the Motion to Dismiss, which would be very surprising.
If Comey is convicted at trial, then a unanimous jury found him guilty. Not sure what you are asking?
the question is not about the motion.
assuming the motion to dismiss is denied and comey is found guilty at trial on all counts, what will be your reaction? you have supported and promoted "rule of law" every time a conservative was on the chopping block. now it's one of your heros. obviously there is sufficient evidence to proceed. how are you going to react when comey loses his case?
Unlike MAGA supporters, I will of course respect a jury's verdict.
(no message)
bookmark.
(no message)
Judge Merchan told Trump's jury that didn't need to be unanimous on a specific charge.....
Merchan actually illegally counseled them that the jurists might not all agree on certain charges but if the Manhattan Democrat filled jury could simply agree that Trump committed ANY crime - even if it there wasn't unanimity on any of the specific crimes individually, then they would be able to count that as being "unanimous".
This is one of the obvious reasons why this will be overturned someday....which is why Merchan won't proceed with the last process which would then trigger a review.
Since you accepted this unconstitutional definition of Merchan's for Trump, I need to ask what your definition of "unanimous" is here?
Jury instructions attached. Read them. It will be your first time.
Read page 49.
Read top of page 44.
The instructions clearly instruct the jury they must be unanimous as to finding guilt on each element of the charged offense. The prosecution offered different ways that Trump committed the fraud by “unlawful means.”
Nothing novel about such as instruction.
Link: https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf
from page 26 of your linked instructions:
"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 ..... "
again from page 31
"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 "
from page 44 (top):
"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. "
it appears to be self-contradictory, n'est-cs pas? when hearing statements like this, a jury of "normal people" will undoubtedly think they do not have to be unanimously in agreement. the instructions are, at a minimum, confusing and ambiguous. intentionally.
And?????
(no message)
and... baron is right.
(no message)