Liberal Forum

SCOTUS Gives Ammunition To Trump’s Manhattan Hush Money Appeal.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump‘s appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/06/23 ... ey-appeal/

This is getting interesting
 

*Huey » 24 Jun 2024, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:07 am

SCOTUS Gives Ammunition To Trump’s Manhattan Hush Money Appeal.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump‘s appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/06/23 ... ey-appeal/

This is getting interesting

That ruling not only negates the verdict, but completely obliterates Merchan's pre-deliberation "instructions" to the jury as well.
 

*Huey » 24 Jun 2024, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:07 am

SCOTUS Gives Ammunition To Trump’s Manhattan Hush Money Appeal.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump‘s appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes.

https://thenationalpulse.com/2024/06/23 ... ey-appeal/

This is getting interesting

Why was this delegated to a Jr..Editor of some blog?

 

*rippy38 » 24 Jun 2024, 9:10 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:10 am

That ruling not only negates the verdict, but completely obliterates Merchan's pre-deliberation "instructions" to the jury as well.

Oh...

Noodling for Stupid....
 
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:41 am

Oh...

Noodling for Stupid....

Wow...

What a well thought out rebuttal.

I'm impressed.

 

 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 9:40 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:40 am

Why was this delegated to a Jr..Editor of some blog?

 

 

You would have to ask them.  But it is also in newsweek.  It may be because it was the weekend.

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... ey-1916223
 

*Huey » 24 Jun 2024, 9:46 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:46 am

You would have to ask them.  But it is also in newsweek.  It may be because it was the weekend.

https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court- ... ey-1916223

Turley offered a qualified statement?

I guess he has learned to be less confident in his analyses....
 

*rippy38 » 24 Jun 2024, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:44 am

Wow...

What a well thought out rebuttal.

I'm impressed.

You tossed a hissy....as intended.

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:48 am

Turley offered a qualified statement?

I guess he has learned to be less confident in his analyses....
 

 

The Supreme Court either made that ruling or they didn't.  Save the questions.  

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:48 am

You tossed a hissy....as intended.

And you saw something that never existed... as usual.

 
 

*rippy38 » 24 Jun 2024, 9:44 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:44 am

Wow...

What a well thought out rebuttal.

I'm impressed.

It's that Poison Ivy League Edumication shining through.

 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 9:41 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:41 am

Oh...

Noodling for Stupid....
 
 

 

It gives Trump's lawyers precedent to argue on appeal.  

ConsRule » 24 Jun 2024, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 10:25 am

It's that Poison Ivy League Edumication shining through.

 

The Red Skirts ...vs... the Blue Skirts....

Sumela » 24 Jun 2024, 10:36 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 10:36 am

The Red Skirts ...vs... the Blue Skirts....

Where did you get that clip of the Veggieman fighting with his girlfriend?
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 9:48 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 9:48 am

You tossed a hissy....as intended.

https://i.pinimg.com/550x/50/61/41/5061 ... f0515a.jpg
 

*rippy38 » 24 Jun 2024, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 10:38 am

Where did you get that clip of the Veggieman fighting with his girlfriend?

  It was resolved. 
Someone gave them both a carton of Kools.  'Kooler' heads then prevailed.
 

*Huey » 24 Jun 2024, 10:25 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 10:25 am

It gives Trump's lawyers precedent to argue on appeal.

That's not how either of your sources put it.

Blackvegetable » 24 Jun 2024, 11:34 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 11:34 am

That's not how either of your sources put it.

Sigh:SCOTUS Gives Ammunition To Trump’s Manhattan Hush Money Appeal.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump‘s appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes.

Additionally, the justices ruled that judges cannot arbitrarily impose sentence enhancements on convicted defendants and that judges cannot issue sentences for crimes beyond those of a jury that unanimously convicts. While the ruling does not directly intervene in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution of the former President, it does open the question of the merit of the prosecution for Trump‘s appeal.
 

*Huey » 24 Jun 2024, 11:43 am » wrote: ↑

24 Jun 2024, 11:43 am

Sigh:SCOTUS Gives Ammunition To Trump’s Manhattan Hush Money Appeal.

The United States Supreme Court issued a ruling on Friday in Erlinger v. United States, which could have important implications for former President Donald J. Trump‘s appeal of the verdict in the Manhattan hush-money case and in the January 6 rioter prosecutions. In Erlinger, the court reaffirmed that a jury must be unanimous in its findings on a criminal conviction, even on underlying predicate crimes.

Additionally, the justices ruled that judges cannot arbitrarily impose sentence enhancements on convicted defendants and that judges cannot issue sentences for crimes beyond those of a jury that unanimously convicts. While the ruling does not directly intervene in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution of the former President, it does open the question of the merit of the prosecution for Trump‘s appeal.

National Pulse, and Jonathan Turley..

While the ruling does not directly intervene in Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecution of the former President, it does open the question

that's hopeful.