I think you may be a little too used to Texas-style voir dire. Some of my colleagues from other states are outright shocked when they see the lawyers in the case talking directly to the panel.aggiehawg said:He's a layman. The differences between challenges for cause and peremptory challenges is lost on him.Im Gipper said:
Thanks to you diligently posting from the blog, I have kept up with the proceedings and know all that.
Which has nothing to do with Trump laughingly "truthing" he has been denied his "unlimited" strikes.
BTW, in the E. Jean Carroll cases, the juries were anonymous, even to Judge Kaplan. Voir dire with an anonymous jury? How the hell does that work?
you're talking to a troll and biden voter. ignore him.aggiehawg said:Such BS. Should not have expected a real response, I guess.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
FTR: Challenges for cause are unlimited. It is peremptory challenges that are restricted in number by the judge. He can increase those numbers in a high profile case in which seating a jury requires a very large panel of prospective jurors.
There is no such statutory crime as "election interference." Both the FEC and SDNY concluded there was no campaign finance violation, you know, the federal agencies charged with enforcing such matters to the exclusion of state prosecutions.
Even the CNN legal analyst believes this case is FOS.
Covid allowed Paw the unprecedented ability to campaign from his basement in 2020.
Trump on house arrest pending appeal is a solution to the spectacle of Trump drawing huge crowds.
Hard to get away with speeches to a parking lot of Jeeps and a dozen people sitting inside lawn dart circles.
Instead of locking Americans down the goal is to lock Trump down.
Easier to do, levels the playing field and leads to a more equatable outcome for Paw.
I've also never heard of a judge, just taking a potential jurors word for it, that he was biased. Usually, there is some questioning to determine the validity of the claim or to see if they can be rehabilitated.. But in this case, it was probably an OK procedure to follow given its Trump.
I'm Gipper
Agree. Judges will ask a few questions to sus out what the true issue is with the claim of bias but as you said this is Trump, a guy with 100% name recognition everybody has an opinion of him.Im Gipper said:
The anonymous jury panel is very weird to me also!
I've also never heard of a judge, just taking a potential jurors word for it, that he was biased. Usually, there is some questioning to determine the validity of the claim or to see if they can be rehabilitated.. But in this case, it was probably an OK procedure to follow given its Trump.
But the anonymous jury thing throws me for a loop. A litigator always wants to establish some trust, a rapport with the jury members and there are not that many opportunities to do so. I consider voir dire as a pre-suasion with opening and closing more persuasion. By pre-suasion I mean setting some parameters and expectations.
Like yesterday when the prosecutor was asking prospective jurors about Cohen's past as a serial perjurer and if they could put that aside in judging his credibility. (Had I been in court, I might have objected to that since that was not in evidence yet.) But nonetheless, that was an effective strategy in my view.
Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.
Thank you for the information, helps clear up some misconceptions.aggiehawg said:Such BS. Should not have expected a real response, I guess.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
FTR: Challenges for cause are unlimited. It is peremptory challenges that are restricted in number by the judge. He can increase those numbers in a high profile case in which seating a jury requires a very large panel of prospective jurors.
There is no such statutory crime as "election interference." Both the FEC and SDNY concluded there was no campaign finance violation, you know, the federal agencies charged with enforcing such matters to the exclusion of state prosecutions.
Even the CNN legal analyst believes this case is FOS.
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
-- Cicero, 55 B.C.
I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.PA24 said:
The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.
Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.
Im Gipper said:
The anonymous jury panel is very weird to me also!
I've also never heard of a judge, just taking a potential jurors word for it, that he was biased. Usually, there is some questioning to determine the validity of the claim or to see if they can be rehabilitated.. But in this case, it was probably an OK procedure to follow given its Trump.
Merchan handled the Trump Org civil trial last year and said he found it painfully tedious to go through and "verify" self identified biases or to hear huge numbers of challenges for cause. So he just said let's skip it and move on to the remaining jurors.
The questionnaire for this case is long long long. I have a feeling nearly every juror self identified would get challenged for cause.
But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.whatthehey78 said:I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.PA24 said:
The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.
Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.
Is that illegal? What is the law he broke to warrant reviving misdemeanors past statute?Opalka said:But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.whatthehey78 said:I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.PA24 said:
The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.
Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.
You should take up that whole born elsewhere talking point with the Clinton campaign and Harvard.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/promotional-booklet/
Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"
Anonymous Source said:Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"
I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes
Doesn't matter, because now 1/3 of America believes it.TXAggie2011 said:Anonymous Source said:Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"
I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes
The questions is if payments made in 2017 incorrectly labeled and outside the statute of limitations somehow broke a record keeping rule that is normally a state misdemeanor for an campaign that occurred in 2016, and if those charges can be passed out into 34 counts just because the entry was listed 34 times, and if it can be changed to a state felony because some as yet unspecified federal law was allegedly broken but not ever federally charged.
This is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024
She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased. pic.twitter.com/2D4cp2WdBc
Yep, that's the kind of person who the judge can say "I looked into her eyes and believe she is telling the truth about being unbiased"aggiejayrod said:
This is someone who was released for scheduling but claimed she can be unbiasedThis is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024
She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased. pic.twitter.com/2D4cp2WdBc
That's why it was so insane comparing McCain and Romney to Hitler. The only place to go after that is this. And of course it's a self fulfilling prophecy right? As soon as you get to this place, twisting the law (and it was twisted even if it could conform to the letter) to pin a Presidential candidate down, possibly imprison him, his people and confiscate businesses and properties etc. Where do you go from there?
If Trump wins he would be justified in going after the people that broke the law to go after him, to punish the people and systems that attacked him and have them investigated. Obviously looking at the track record for many of these people they have things to hide and the gross conflicts of interest are absolutely mind boggling. Growing up I never thought we would get to this level. Yes there is always a low level of corruption in any system, but really if Trump didn't go after some of these people he'd be the biggest idiot on the planet. And all of that comes with other problems, and that's just if he wins!
If he loses, no one who supports him or opposes the railroading will look at the election or the government as legitimate. It's very clear we have already entered an extrajudicial, extraconstitutional period. There are very clearly two justice systems depending on venue (location AND level). Reforming those types of things isn't easy either. Usually it comes in the form of scrapping the entire system and starting from scratch and that's really, really hard to pull off. I won't break any laws but you can be damn sure I won't cooperate with anything at the federal level. I travel to the NE frequently but I'll do significantly more remote to avoid putting money in the pockets of locals. If called for a Federal jury I won't convict in a criminal case.
We've come to a breaking point. And more and more people are coming, slowly, reluctantly, begrudgingly to that realization. Peaceful or unpeaceful is the real question because one side has so demonized the other that there is no possible coexistence. The unintended consequence of course is that they will become demonized by the ones they hate. And then the real fireworks start. If history teaches us anything it will be slowly, then all at once.
This lady is standard issue in 2024.aggiejayrod said:
This is someone who was released for scheduling but claimed she can be unbiasedThis is one of the prospective jurors who assured us she could be unbiased in the Trump trial.
— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) April 17, 2024
She was dismissed due to scheduling conflicts. But she said this, while also assuring the court that she could have remained objective and unbiased. pic.twitter.com/2D4cp2WdBc
NPC, an autonomous drone of a person.
Probably works in corporate HR or is a teacher.
Sing songey voice. The laugh before responding to the question and up speak is a dead giveaway. They can't help themselves.
From where did you get that 1/3 of America? Please cite sources or did you make it up to derail the discussion?Anonymous Source said:Doesn't matter, because now 1/3 of America believes it.TXAggie2011 said:Anonymous Source said:Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"
I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes
People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance.
-- Cicero, 55 B.C.
LINKQuote:
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg has raised over $800,000 since indicting former President Donald Trump over the payments that his 2016 presidential campaign made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the election.
State campaign finance data shows that Bragg has raked in $845,253 between March 30, 2023, and the latest reporting date, January 12, 2024. Donations from New York State accounted for an overwhelming majority, 72 percent, of the over 800 contributions he received over that time period. Only one of his 20 largest donations was an out-of-state contribution.
There's money in those OMB prosecutions.
TXAggie2011 said:Anonymous Source said:Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"
I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes
Don't tell these TDS'ers that. They will be going REEEEEEEE MORE ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!!
What's the strategy there?
I'm Gipper
Im Gipper said:
So he really knows but is just lying on truth?
What's the strategy there?
I have no idea.
Not do I GAF
Strange how nobody has ever prosecuted Hillary for her campaign's payments to Fusion GPS labeled as "legal expenses" under the same law. I wonder why? Wonder why GeorgiAg isn't on that case?
He has, or should have, unlimited strikes for cause. Perhaps that's what he's referring to.
The evangelicals dont give a crap They will just tell you that David wasnt perfectOpalka said:But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.whatthehey78 said:I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.PA24 said:
The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.
Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.
Jack Boyette said:
Pretty clear to anyone that isn't a complete imbecile that he isn't referring to jurors strike limitations as election interference; it's a broader reference to the trial as a whole, and the multiple charges as a whole.
Strange how nobody has ever prosecuted Hillary for her campaign's payments to Fusion GPS labeled as "legal expenses" under the same law. I wonder why? Wonder why GeorgiAg isn't on that case?
He has, or should have, unlimited strikes for cause. Perhaps that's what he's referring to.
Just shows his brain is still TDS infected preventing rational or logical thought or comprehension. You'd think by now he would realize that everything he thinks about Trump is probably twisted logic and makes him look like that imbecile you referenced
2040huck said:The evangelicals dont give a crap They will just tell you that David wasnt perfectOpalka said:But they believed that Obama was born elsewhere. They believed that the Clintons were pimping children out of the basement of a pizza parlor. They believed that the last election was rigged. So yes, apparently many Americans go for all kinds of crap.whatthehey78 said:I wish I could believe that. Sadly..."Americans" doesn't mean what it used to.PA24 said:
The more they try to stop Trump, the worst it gets for them.
Americans just don't go for this kind of crap.
Now they're even defending a guy who paid money to a porn star just before an election so as to not give voters that information to make an informed choice about him.
Well he was an adulterer and a murderer.
Day Three Live Blog HEREQuote:
Judge Juan Merchan last week released the questionnaire that is being presented to potential jurors in court. It contains multiple questions that could signal political views to the lawyers on both sides.
A panel of 12 New Yorkers and six alternates need to be seated to decide whether to convict Donald Trump.
Here's a look at some of the topics of the questions:Those in the jury pool will also be asked if they have views on whether a former president can be charged in state court and how Trump is being treated in this case.
- News consumption
- Affiliations with groups like the Proud Boys, QAnon and Antifa.
- Whether prospective jurors or anyone in their circle attended a Trump rally or an anti-Trump event.
- If they've ever read books or listened to podcasts from Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer and a key witness for the district attorney, or if they've read any of Trump's own books.
The questions are being used for the judge to strike jurors at the outset, if they don't believe they can render a verdict fairly. They are also being used by lawyers for both sides to strike jurors for any reason a key part of the jury selection process.
TXAggie2011 said:Anonymous Source said:Kind of crazy how an ex-president can be so objectively wrong about everything he talks about.GeorgiAg said:That's for Bragg to prove and the judge to charge the jury with the applicable law. The indictment is hereaggiehawg said:Define what is "illegal election interference"?Quote:
If all of that is proven, he engaged in illegal election interference.
[well that link didn't work, but you know how to find it].
Apparently not giving a criminal defendant "unlimited strikes" when picking a jury is "election interference." If Trump can use it in reference to a rule he just made up, certainly I can use the term about concealed and falsified payments to a porn star so the public doesn't find out about it before an election.
"I was told I could have three judges! And I could pick them! And I was PROMISED the trial could take place by the pool at Mar-a-lago!"
I'd wager Trump knew and knows that post is wrong about juror strikes
so add his confusion about striking jurors to the list of 2,356 things that Trump is either ignorant about, or willfully lying about.