Attorneys: Jury Instructions Require Trump’s Conviction


“If the jury begins deliberations Tuesday afternoon, expect a verdict no later than Friday afternoon. I expect a “GUILTY” verdict, but only because the jury instructions, as urged by the DA and adopted by the judge, over strenuous and well-founded defense objections, virtually require conviction,” Cobb said to Semafor.

“I reach this legal conclusion because of my long experience as a federal prosecutor and white collar defense lawyer, my reverence for the rule of law, and despite my view that Trump remains the greatest threat to Democracy in our nation’s history,” Cobb added.

As Mr. Gouveia says in the clip, the jury can pick whatever crime they want, and they don’t have to agree. That’s how they prevent a hung jury.  The jury can pick different alleged violations. Merchan doesn’t care if he’s wrong. He’s on a mission and was sent for a reason, and he’s ensuring it happens.

Gouveia goes into the jury instructions, which are abominable, shocking, and un-American.

WOW! Corruption worthy of an authoritarian nation.

Amuse Listed the Jury Instructions

LAWFARE 2.0: Acting Justice Merchan will reportedly instruct jurors that they can individually pick any one of three ‘predicate’ crimes during their deliberations.

Shockingly, they need not ALL agree on which crime they believe Trump committed to find him guilty. This unprecedented move undermines the very foundation of our justice system, highlighting how New York Democrats are using their control of the judiciary to pursue political vendettas.

The three predicate crimes they include are:
  1. Tax Fraud: Allegations suggest that Trump or his organization may have misrepresented payments made to Michael Cohen. It’s critical to note that Trump did not take a deduction or write-off for these payments. For Trump to be found guilty of tax fraud, all three of the following elements must be true: – False Statement: Trump must have made a false representation on a tax return or other tax-related document. In this case, no deduction was claimed. – Intent: The false statement must have been made with the intent to evade taxes. Importantly, no taxes were evaded. – Materiality: The false statement must be material, meaning it could influence the decision of the tax authority. Here, no decision was influenced.
2. State Election Law Violations:

The prosecution argues that by failing to itemize payments made to Michael Cohen in 2017, Trump was attempting to influence the 2016 election. For Trump to be found guilty of violating state election law, each of the following three elements must be true: – Intent to Influence an Election: There must be clear evidence that Trump intended to influence the 2016 election. – Unlawful Expenditure or Contribution: The payments in question must constitute an unlawful expenditure or contribution. – Material Effect: Trump’s actions must have had a material effect on the election, meaning they were significant enough to influence the outcome. Trump lost New York by more than 23% in the 2016 election. Despite the publicity surrounding the payment, Trump is projected to lose the state in 2024 by only 10%. For this charge to hold, the payment to Michael Cohen would need to have had a ‘material effect’ on the election, which it clearly did not.

3. Federal Election Law Violations:

The prosecution argues that Trump should have used campaign funds to pay Michael Cohen for his services related to Stormy Daniels and reported those payments to the FEC.

Notably, the jury is unaware that the FEC has already reviewed and dismissed these allegations. For Trump to be found guilty of violating federal election law, all three of the following elements must be true:

– Contribution:

Trump must have made or accepted a contribution.

– Exceeding Limits:

The contribution must exceed legal limits set by the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). Importantly, under FECA, there is no limit to the contributions a candidate can make to his own campaign, rendering this charge invalid on this basis alone.

– Intent:

The contribution must be made with the intent to influence the election. The FEC’s prior dismissal of these allegations underscores the lack of merit in this case. Once they pick one or more of these ‘predicate’ crimes, the jury will then need to determine if Trump falsified business records in the first degree under New York Penal Law § 175.10. For Trump to be found guilty, each of the following three elements must be true:

– False Entry:

Trump must have instructed his accountant not to itemize payments made to Michael Cohen. However, the Trump Organization’s accountant testified that Trump had no involvement in the matter and that expenses were booked in the company’s ledger without Trump’s input.

– Intent to Defraud:

The un-itemized expense entries must have been made with the intent to defraud. There is no allegation that the accountant intended to defraud anyone by failing to itemize the payments to Michael Cohen, nor is there evidence that Trump was aware of the entries’ completeness or had any fraudulent intent.

– Concealment of Another Crime:

The false entries must have been intended to conceal other crimes. There is no evidence that Trump intended to commit tax fraud, especially since he did not attempt to deduct the payments from his taxes. Similarly, there is no indication that Trump intended to violate state election law, as he did not campaign in New York, recognizing it as a lost cause.

Finally, Trump did not intend to break federal campaign finance laws, believing he could not use campaign money to pay for an NDA, and knowing he could spend an unlimited amount of his own money on his campaign. This case brings Lawfare to a whole new level. There is no crime here, much less a predicate crime. Despite this, it is clear that Acting Justice Merchan is not concerned about being reversed. His focus seems to be on obtaining a guilty verdict.

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments