I have a legal question in Trump case

[Pototan]

Let's say I'm a juror that's fair minded and unbiased. I understand the prosecution's case and the defense's.

As I understand the case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that the prosecution needs to prove Trump participated in fraud by using company funds to reimburse Michael Cohen for paying hush money to Stormy Daniels to silence her about an affair. By listing the payments as "legal services", Trump committed fraud. However, this action is just a misdemeanor in New York State. This part of the case is cut and dried for me. He's guilty of this element of the crime.

Now, the hard part for me. The prosecution needs to prove that the payments, both Cohen's initial payment of $130,000 and Trump's reimbursement of Cohen in instalments from the company's funds was done to hide the affair and cover-up because these actions would have a negative effect in the upcoming election, which was just days away. Now, we're down to Trump's intent. The prosecution insists, through evidence, that was certainly done to affect the election. The Trump defense team will argue that the whole scheme was to hide the reporting of the affair (Trump still denies the affair, as well as the one with McDougall) from his wife.

Here's my question. What if, as a juror, I conclude that both can be true at the same time. Keeping the affair from the public in order to win the election and, as a residual matter, keeping the story from Melania.

As another aside. Can I, as a juror, vote guilty on the misdemeanor and not guilty on the felony?

Now, please don't misunderstand me. I would vote guilty in any instance, and I could never be on the jury. I have hated the guy well before he even ran for President. But I'm trying to get a handle on this. If a juror can vote "guilty" if he or she thinks both of these scenarios are true, Trump's cooked. If not, it's 50% he'll be found guilty and a 50% chance of a hung jury. Acquittal is out of the question. IMHO

OK, legal beagles, let me know how, as an objective juror, I should vote on the matter if I see it as I have explained here.

[Ohio Joe]

1. He had no care about his wife... Zero

Read page 6 #19 here:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741707-new-york-v-trump-statement-of-facts

This is the Statement of Fact released with the indictment. They have tfg on tape saying to Cohen, delay the payment past the election and we won’t have to pay… It won’t matter. He would be fine with his wife being humiliated after the election… Just hide it till he won.

No honest juror could think he gave even the tiniest shit about his wife.

[blm]

2. I believe Cohen has Trump on tape telling him to hold off

paying Daniels, saying after the election it won’t matter if it’s revealed. That makes it clear he wasn’t motivated to hide it from his wife.

[unblock]

3. They get a separate vote for each of the what, 34 counts?

So they can vote guilty on some and not guilty on others.

A huge number of possible combinations, mathematically speaking, though some combinations may not make much sense. But they can certainly find him guilty on some counts but not others based on their finding of his intent.

[Pototan]

4. That's not my question

My question is: the case is in two parts, falsifying business records, which is a misdemeanor, and that fact was done to advance another crime, election interference, which advances the charges to a felony.

As a juror, can I find Trump guilty of falsifying business records, but not on the election interference on any or all of the 34 counts?

In other words: Trump is guilty of the misdemeanors but not guilty (or hung) on the felonies.

[unblock]

5. I think that's up to the judge in the charge to the jury

The indictment is just 34 counts all of section 175.10, falsifying business records in the first degree.

He is not charged with falsifying business records in the second degree (a lesser charge, not involving intent to commit or conceal another crime) but I think the judge could offer that as an option to the jury, or not.

I'm not sure of the procedure under New York law. I think usually if the lesser charge isn't in the indictment then the jury can't throw it in. Maybe a ny lawyer here came chime in...

[Pototan]

6. Thank you

That answers one of my questions.

Do you have an opinion on the main question I asked?

If, as an unbiased juror, I come to the conclusion that Trump committed this offense, but his intent was to both influence the election and keep the info from Melania, should that juror find guilty or not guilty?

I know intent is one of the elements of the crime in order to convict. If Trump wanted to influence the election by his actions, that's guilty. If, on the other hand, Trump wanted to shield the info to protect his marriage, that intent is not criminal. However, what if the juror is convinced Trump did it for both reasons?

[unblock]

7. As I understand it, you would then find him not guilty of what he was charged with

Not clear to me if you could then find him guilty of the lesser charge that he was not charged with.

[NanaCat]

8. Proving intent is not always necessary.

And it is not necessary in this case.

What every prosecution attempts to do is to prove a crime was committed. That's it.

Intent applies in a few legal matters (whether to charge voluntary vs involuntary manslaughter, for instance), but most of the time, it's immaterial for charging someone. For everything else, determining intent can help bolster the evidence for a prosecution's claim, but it's not 100% necessary to establish it to make a case. Evidence is what matters.

Who cares why he did it? If there's credible evidence of falsifying business records, then that's all the prosecution needs to establish, without ever addressing intent. The prosecutors probably will address it, to bolster the case, but they don't have to do it.

BECAUSE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE BEATS INTENT when it comes to a prosecution.

[onenote]

9. You are quite mistaken. Proving intent IS necessary in this case.

The indictment charges Trump with falsifying business records in the first degree in violation of NY Penal Law 175.10. That provision states:

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

A person commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree (Pen.Law 175.05) when, with intent to defraud, he:
1.?Makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; ?or
2.?Alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; ?or
3.?Omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he knows to be imposed upon him by law or by the nature of his position; ?or
4.?Prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise.

[Pototan]

10. You seem to grasp my question

Therefore, I really am interested in your opinion, so I'll state my question again.

In my hypothetical, assume that I am an objective, unbiased juror. Please don't go over the merits of the case, just assume I come to the conclusion that Trump absolutely committed the crime of intentionally falsifying business records, which satisfies the first element of the felony charge. Then, I come to the conclusion that, beyond a reasonable doubt he committed that crime with the intention to influence the election. But the defense has convinced me that in addition to Trump's intent to influence the election, he also intended to keep the Stormy Daniels' affair from his wife, Melania. Let's just say that I have concluded both to be true. After all, they are not mutually exclusive. Should I find him guilty or not guilty. Have all the elements been satisfied under my scenario and, in addition Trump figured his life would be easier if Melania never found out. Is that fact irrelevant since he did intend to influence the election or does the fact that I think both are the case give me reasonable doubt about Trump's true intentions and obligate me to vote to acquit?

I don't personally feel this way. I'm just looking at this as if there is any chance to acquit this no-good peace of shit

[onenote]

11. I can't give a definitive answer, but this is what I think:

Trying to influence an election isn't a criminal act so being convinced that's why the records were falsified isn't enough. The crime that the statement of facts alludes to is making an illegal campaign contribution. Cohen plead guilty to that crime, claiming he did it on behalf of and/or instructions from Trump. But Trump hasn't been charged, so while the prosecution presumably will try to tie the illegal contribution crime to the falsification of records, it may be tricky if the defense does a good job of pushing back on the second element.

So if you're convinced he was trying to influence the election and hide his affair from Melania, it still leaves open the question of whether Trump committed or attempted to commit another crime -- e.g., illegal campaign contribution -- beyond falsifying the records. A jury could find that beyond a reasonable doubt, but as I noted above, it's not a slam dunk.

As for your specific question, it's possible to find that he had the requisite intent to commit fraud and to do so with the intent to further another criminal act even if he also intended to hide the affair. One doesn't have to exclusively intend a particular result. Someone who attacks a person with intent to cause them bodily harm -- a crime -- isn't less guilty if he also had the intent of preventing his victim from having an affair with his wife. Or an intent to prevent him from reporting the attacker's embezzlement to the authorities.

[Pototan]

12. That gives me a better understanding

I believe that if Trump intended to influence the election, that makes the payoff and the reimbursement an illegal campaign contribution. As you seem to explain, the fact that it also hides the infidelity from his wife does not absolve Trump of that element of the crime.

My hypothetical juror votes GUILTY.

Thak you