Verdict is in

[Dude#1279435]

Mr Clark- can you explain to me why the jurors only had to prove one piece?

The jury was told it had to find that the falsification of the business records was intended to achieve an illegal goal, and it was presented with several illegal goals that would qualify including violation of federal election laws and violations of tax laws. And jurors were told that so long as they all agreed that the falsification was done for one of these purposes, they didn’t have to all agree on which one. On appeal Trump will argue that this violates the requirement of the unanimous jury or that the charge was illegally vague. But New York law clearly permits this instruction. So Trump may have the challenge of arguing that the NY law itself is unconstitutional.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Mr Clark- can you explain to me why the jurors only had to prove one piece?

The jury was told it had to find that the falsification of the business records was intended to achieve an illegal goal, and it was presented with several illegal goals that would qualify including violation of federal election laws and violations of tax laws. And jurors were told that so long as they all agreed that the falsification was done for one of these purposes, they didn’t have to all agree on which one. On appeal Trump will argue that this violates the requirement of the unanimous jury or that the charge was illegally vague. But New York law clearly permits this instruction. So Trump may have the challenge of arguing that the NY law itself is unconstitutional.

I'm not sure I understand your question (the jurors don't need to prove anything). I believe you're asking why the jury was instructed that it only needed to find that the falsification was was done for one of three illegal purposes without specifying which of the three.

The quote in your post appears to be correct. As I understand it, under NY law the prosecution is allowed to provide the jury with alternative illegal purposes, and the jury can decide that the prosecution proved at least one of the three. In theory, there could be three different groups of jurors, each group finding that the prosecution only proved different one of the three.

Given that NY law specifies that this is okay, Trump would need to persuade a court that the NY law is unconstitutional, at least when applied in this way.

 

[trochetier]

Trump cannot be tried by any jury (of his peers). He has no peers - he is one unique one of a kind. All cases filed so far against him are thus fundamentally flawed. He cannot also be tried by a panel of judges either.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Trump cannot be tried by any jury (of his peers). He has no peers - he is one unique one of a kind. All cases filed so far against him are thus fundamentally flawed. He cannot also be tried by a panel of judges either.

Yep, like charging a unicorn, one of a kind.

 

[Dude#1279435]

He has no peers - he is one unique one of a kind.

Yes unique one of a kind d--khead.

 

[mono-bloc]

If the Trump Troop is the best they can find to lead them,, like a mongrel dog, Then the country really does have a problem

 

[Mr._Clark]

The Sixth Amendment states that the accused have a right to an impartial jury:

>>>In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . <<<(emphasis added)

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-6/

The term "peers" is often used, but of course Trump is not entitled to a jury consisting solely of twits.