Would you accept whatever the FINAL verdict might be

[Ethel2]

Simple question: will you accept the FINAL verdict (ie, after all appeals are exhausted) in all of the charges levied against the defendant, the jackass as you would accept the final verdict in charges levied against anyone else in this country. In other words, if he is found INNOCENT would you accept that, and if he is found GUILTY would you also accept that as fact.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Simple question: will you accept the FINAL verdict (ie, after all appeals are exhausted) in all of the charges levied against the defendant, the jackass as you would accept the final verdict in charges levied against anyone else in this country. In other words, if he is found INNOCENT would you accept that, and if he is found GUILTY would you also accept that as fact.

Small correction: Defendants are not found "innocent." They are found "not guilty" which is a very different thing. It simply means that the prosecutors failed to make a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. That by the way, requires a unanimous verdict. A split verdict results in no verdict and a 'hung jury.' In that case, the prosecution has to decide if they will start a new trial.

Likewise, the appellate courts will not find the convicted defendant "innocent." Rather, they will simply rule on whether the defendant's rights were violated during the trial. If they were, then the conviction is thrown out and the prosecutors will decide whether pursuing another trial would be worthwhile.

 

[Emily L]

I will accept the verdict, either way.

 

[Emily L]

Small correction: Defendants are not found "innocent." They are found "not guilty" which is a very different thing. It simply means that the prosecutors failed to make a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty.

Likewise, the appellate courts will not find the convicted defendant "innocent." Rather, they will simply rule on whether the defendant's rights were violated during the trial. If they were, then the conviction is thrown out and the prosecutors will decide whether pursuing another trial would be worthwhile.

Stealers, I was going to say you were right, but I've decided you are actually "not wrong."


(Sorry, I couldn't resist that. )

 

[Ethel2]

Small correction: Defendants are not found "innocent." They are found "not guilty" which is a very different thing. It simply means that the prosecutors failed to make a case "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. That by the way, requires a unanimous verdict. A split verdict results in no verdict and a 'hung jury.' In that case, the prosecution has to decide if they will start a new trial.

Likewise, the appellate courts will not find the convicted defendant "innocent." Rather, they will simply rule on whether the defendant's rights were violated during the trial. If they were, then the conviction is thrown out and the prosecutors will decide whether pursuing another trial would be worthwhile.

Understood. For the purposes of this poll I use "not guilty" to mean "innocent", though technically and legally the terminology is faulty. A hung jury issues no final judgement either way and may result in a new trial, as you pointed out.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

This is not a good question if you are combining several cases against Trump the Terrorist that will be announced by totally different judges in different courts. I also hate the use of the word "jackass" in your question because Trump the Terrorist is an elephant. He also is not the only defendant in any of the three cases against him. But if you were only asking about one very specific case without referring to one of multiple defendants by the wrong term, it would be a great question.

 

[Ethel2]

This is not a good question if you are combining several cases against Trump the Terrorist that will be announced by totally different judges in different courts. I also hate the use of the word "jackass" in your question because Trump the Terrorist is an elephant. He also is not the only defendant in any of the three cases against him. But if you were only asking about one very specific case without referring to one of multiple defendants by the wrong term, it would be a great question.

I am referring to ANY of the charges in ANY of the indictments against whatever you want to call him. You see, one characteristic of the MAGAT mob is that their hero the jackass is innocent (or "not guilty" in legal terms) regardless of the verdict of any jury because they think the system is somehow rigged against him or for a variety of other absurd reasons.

 

[uptower]

Yes we will accept it. But to temper expectations, we might not like it. For example the sentencing could be very light. You never know, the prosecution might flub it altogether.

Also, a jury of twelve people comes with their baggage. It only takes one die hard MAGA to insist Trump did no wrong no matter what. Prolly how OJ got off, but that’s how the system works.

But with so many indictments in different jurisdictions, some of it is likely to stick at least. I mean, he’s committed so many crimes it’s no surprise eventually they catch up.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Understood. For the purposes of this poll I use "not guilty" to mean "innocent", though technically and legally the terminology is faulty. A hung jury issues no final judgement either way and may result in a new trial, as you pointed out.

Right. Judges never use the word "innocent." They always say "not guilty" if the jury cannot find proof the defendant is guilty. It is also legally required to assume a defendant "is innocent until proven guilty," however, to give that person a fair trial.

As for hung juries, the Fifth Amendment prevents the court from trying the same defendant(s) against the same crime twice (known in small talk as "double jeopardy"), so they effectively have the same result as a "not guilty" verdict. There is no chance of a hung jury in the latest indictment though because we have seen a ton of undeniable proof and heard sworn testimonies from many people already and there is more to come.

 

[uptower]

I am referring to ANY of the charges in ANY of the indictments against whatever you want to call him. You see, one characteristic of the MAGAT mob is that their hero the jackass is innocent (or "not guilty" in legal terms) regardless of the verdict of any jury because they think the system is somehow rigged against him or for a variety of other absurd reasons.

Yet if the jury finds him innocent it’ll be a great day for “justice”. In other words they can have it both ways and see no inconsistency.

 

[Ethel2]

Right. Judges never use the word "innocent." They always say "not guilty" if the jury cannot find proof the defendant is guilty. It is also legally required to assume a defendant "is innocent until proven guilty," however, to give that person a fair trial.

As for hung juries, the Fifth Amendment prevents the court from trying the same defendant against the same crime (known in small talk as "double jeopardy"), so they effectively have the same result as a "not guilty" verdict.

Not quite true. Sometimes a case may be retried due to a hung jury, at least from what I can find:

A hung jury is a jury that is unable to reach a verdict by the required voting margin. A hung jury will often lead to a retrial of the case. In some cases, the judge may instruct the jury to continue their deliberation, but this is not a common practice.

hung jury

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[uptower]

As for hung juries, the Fifth Amendment prevents the court from trying the same defendant(s) against the same crime (known in small talk as "double jeopardy"), twice, so they effectively have the same result as a "not guilty" verdict. There is no chance of a hung jury in the latest indictment though because we have seen a ton of undeniable proof and heard sworn testimonies from many people already and there is more to come.

And this is the part they often don’t talk about: the truth is a jury member could potentially harbor unreasonable doubt. In other words they can’t be convinced no matter what because they’re biased one way. They try to weed out those in selection, but if the juror hides it well, it can’t be helped. It’s built into the system and I can’t think of another way to keep it fair.

 

[Mycroft]

Simple question: will you accept the FINAL verdict (ie, after all appeals are exhausted) in all of the charges levied against the defendant, the jackass as you would accept the final verdict in charges levied against anyone else in this country. In other words, if he is found INNOCENT would you accept that, and if he is found GUILTY would you also accept that as fact.

No.

It's nothing but politically corrupt Trump hatred that is the reason for these nonsense indictments. If Trump is found guilty, it is ONLY the result of that politically corrupt Trump hatred. Accepting a guilty verdict is nothing more than accepting political corruption.

I will NEVER accept political corruption.

 

[Donatello]

No.

It's nothing but politically corrupt Trump hatred that is the reason for these nonsense indictments. If Trump is found guilty, it is ONLY the result of that politically corrupt Trump hatred. Accepting a guilty verdict is nothing more than accepting political corruption.

I will NEVER accept political corruption.

Ha ha. First you say, Trump is innocent no matter what anyone or the law says... And then you say, "I will never accept political corruption". Hope you see how ridiculous that is. But probably not.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Right. Judges never use the word "innocent." They always say "not guilty" if the jury cannot find proof the defendant is guilty. It is also legally required to assume a defendant "is innocent until proven guilty," however, to give that person a fair trial.

As for hung juries, the Fifth Amendment prevents the court from trying the same defendant(s) against the same crime twice (known in small talk as "double jeopardy"), so they effectively have the same result as a "not guilty" verdict. There is no chance of a hung jury in the latest indictment though because we have seen a ton of undeniable proof and heard sworn testimonies from many people already and there is more to come.

Sorry, you are not correct. The only time double jeopardy applies is if a defendant is acquitted (found not guilty). If there is a hung jury (they could not come to a unanimous verdict) the prosecution can retry the defendant, starting with a new jury. Further, any testimony or evidence from the previous trial is admissible in the new trial.

 

[Absentglare]

Simple question: will you accept the FINAL verdict (ie, after all appeals are exhausted) in all of the charges levied against the defendant, the jackass as you would accept the final verdict in charges levied against anyone else in this country. In other words, if he is found INNOCENT would you accept that, and if he is found GUILTY would you also accept that as fact.

It’s a tough question to answer. It’s truly bewildering that his supporters have clung to him in spite of his behaviors. It’s rather shocking that there’s any significant quantity of so-called Americans who still defend a known traitor. It seems there is no depth they won’t sink to, no depravity they won’t excuse. I suppose they love themselves and their dear leader so much that they’ll turn against their own country. It’ll take just one true believer cultist wacko to undermine the jury pool.

The ****ing guy was going to steal the election, subvert the constitution, violate all of our rights to vote, and then invoke the insurrection act to deploy the US military to slaughter US citizens who protest his crimes. The people who still support this traitor are not reasonable.

 

[samiam5211]

I would accept the verdict, but only if it's "guilty".

So I guess I am like Trump with accepting election outcomes.

 

[Donatello]

It’s a tough question to answer. It’s truly bewildering that his supporters have clung to him in spite of his behaviors. It’s rather shocking that there’s any significant quantity of so-called Americans who still defend a known traitor. It seems there is no depth they won’t sink to, no depravity they won’t excuse. I suppose they love themselves and their dear leader so much that they’ll turn against their own country. It’ll take just one true believer cultist wacko to undermine the jury pool.

The ****ing guy was going to steal the election, subvert the constitution, violate all of our rights to vote, and then invoke the insurrection act to deploy the US military to slaughter US citizens who protest his crimes. The people who still support this traitor are not reasonable.

I agree with you but you didn't answer the question. Would you accept the court and jury's decision? Or in other words, do you believe in the judicial system or not?

 

[Absentglare]

I agree with you but you didn't answer the question. Would you accept the court and jury's decision? Or in other words, do you believe in the judicial system or not?

I’m inclined to say “yes”.

 

[Donatello]

I’m inclined to say “yes”.

A wimpy reply but I'm glad you said yes. It shouldn't be a tough question.

 

[Absentglare]

A wimpy reply but I'm glad you said yes. It shouldn't be a tough question.

You’re right, we deserve political opponents who are not blindly devoted to a traitor, who are not wildly delusional. In fact, it shouldn’t even be a question.

 

[Ethel2]

A wimpy reply but I'm glad you said yes. It shouldn't be a tough question.

The judicial system is far from perfect, but in life there is very little that is in fact perfect. I can’t think of a better way to judge guilty or not guilty than our current system.
There are people who have voted “no” here and I applaud your honesty. At least you had the guts to admit that your mind is already made up regardless of the verdicts of the various juries. That’s your opinion and you are entitled to it.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

And this is the part they often don’t talk about: the truth is a jury member could potentially harbor unreasonable doubt. In other words they can’t be convinced no matter what because they’re biased one way. They try to weed out those in selection, but if the juror hides it well, it can’t be helped. It’s built into the system and I can’t think of another way to keep it fair.

Lawyers spend hours trying to weed out people like this. One question people called for jury duty in the Aaron Hernandez case was, "Are you a Patriots fan?" But I heard O.J. Simpson's verdict was "not guilty" because a black juror "played the race card."

 

[Maidenrules29]

I voted yes but I could really just not give a F......

 

[uptower]

Lawyers spend hours trying to weed out people like this. One question people called for jury duty in the Aaron Hernandez case was, "Are you a Patriots fan?" But I heard O.J. Simpson's verdict was "not guilty" because a black juror "played the race card."

I don't know the personal motives of the jurors, but the evidence against OJ was very solid, but if one person 'doubts' -or chooses to - then it can sink the case. I suspect that's the case in the Simpson case though I can't speak to why. Could happen with Trump. All it takes is one fan.