I’m just some idiot on the internet who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, but…
Is it possible this isn’t a mistake? If you’re going to try to win a trial through corruption and wrongdoings, it seems easier to illicitly win over (and have it stay quiet) one person than half of a jury, no?
That's their play, they don't want a jury because they're trying to pay the groundwork for a mistrial via judicial bias but that is a high jump and they're stumbling on molehills.
The jury has to be unanimous no matter the decision. If they can't agree, they either deliberate as long as it takes, or if the jury is hung, then they'll reduce the charges.
I’m just some idiot on the internet who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, but…
Is it possible this isn’t a mistake? If you’re going to try to win a trial through corruption and wrongdoings, it seems easier to illicitly win over (and have it stay quiet) one person than half of a jury, no?
This judge already appears to have an axe to grind with Trump, so, uh, it probably would have been easier with a jury.
That's their play, they don't want a jury because they're trying to pay the groundwork for a mistrial via judicial bias but that is a high jump and they're stumbling on molehills.
Not a mistake. They plan to win on appeal.
Sounds like he's setting up an appeal to a sympathetic judge on the basis of "the evil liberals were mean to me!"
You only need one juror though, no?
I’m honestly not sure. Does a jury vote need to be unanimous for a guilty verdict?
The jury has to be unanimous no matter the decision. If they can't agree, they either deliberate as long as it takes, or if the jury is hung, then they'll reduce the charges.