Judge Merchan Violates the Constitution Again, Instructs Jury That They Don't Need to be Unanimous About Which Mystery Crime Constitutes the Legal Predicate for the Trump Prosecution

Hey, hit Trump with a gag order about mentioning this in his appeal. His appeal might endanger Merchan and his Democrat whore daughter.

The prosecution wants a Choose Your Own Adventure style verdict -- jurors can pick from three offered predicate crimes. And they don't even have to agree on which of the three possibilities they're convicting Trump under; five jurors can pick Possible Predicate #1, four can pick Possible Predicate #2, two can pick Possible Predicate #3, and one can even make up his own predicate. As long as they all say that some predicate is present, they can convict.

This is against the law. The Supreme Court has ruled that juries must be unanimous about all elements of a crime to convict.

udge Juan Merchan ruled that the jury does not need to unanimously agree on the specific 'predicate' crime Donald Trump committed to convict him of felony-level falsification of business records. Legal experts, including Greta Van Susteren, have pointed to a Supreme Court case that contradicts this ruling.

Key Details:

Judge's Ruling: Judge Juan Merchan ruled that for a felony conviction, the jury need not unanimously agree on which specific crime Trump intended to cover up by falsifying business records.

Legal Precedent: Legal analyst Greta Van Susteren highlighted a Supreme Court case, Richardson v. United States, which emphasizes the need for jury unanimity on underlying offenses.

Defense Argument: Trump's defense argued for unanimity on the 'predicate' crime, but the prosecution maintained that the law does not require such agreement.

Diving Deeper:

In a significant ruling, Judge Juan Merchan determined that the jury in Donald Trump's hush money trial does not need to unanimously agree on the specific 'predicate' crime Trump allegedly committed to secure a conviction for felony-level falsification of business records. This decision plays a crucial role in the prosecution's strategy to elevate the charges against Trump.

According to the ruling, while the jury must unanimously agree that Trump falsified business documents to commit or conceal another crime, they do not need to concur on what that specific crime was. This ruling sparked controversy and drew criticism from legal experts, including Greta Van Susteren, who cited the Supreme Court case Richardson v. United States. In that 1999 case, the Court ruled that jurors must unanimously agree on the specific underlying offenses in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise (CCE) prosecution.

The prosecution initially presented four possible predicate crimes, one of which was dismissed by the judge. The remaining possibilities include a tax crime and violations of state or federal election law. Trump's defense, led by lawyer Emil Bove, argued that unanimity on the predicate crime is essential for a felony conviction. However, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo contended that the law does not mandate such agreement.

"The importance of the case is not a basis for deviating from the standard application of the law," Colangelo stated. "There's no reason to rewrite the law for this case."

The Democrats have decided to abandon longstanding Supreme Court rulings to Save Democracy.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 03:28 PM

| Access Comments