Trump’s New York case will begin in March

A New York judge ruled Thursday that Donald Trump will stand trial in March on charges related to the Stormy Daniels coverup. Assuming the case goes forward as scheduled, Trump will be the first former president ever to be criminally tried. It will also be the first criminal case to slot in place among the complicated judicial calendar Trump is facing in this election year, and it means Trump will almost certainly face a jury before Election Day. In three other jurisdictions—Georgia state court and federal courts in Florida, and Washington, D.C.—Trump has been indicted on charges related to the 2020 elections and his retention of classified documents, but the timetable for those cases remains unclear.

    • @Chef@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      644 months ago

      Be careful with that “no way Trump can slide on all 34 charges” stuff.

      All you need is ONE juror to hold their ground and it’s a hung jury. You get one dedicated MAGAt creating an 11-1 hung jury and Señor BuildThaWall can delay prison with mistrial after mistrial.

      • @quackers
        link
        274 months ago

        How do you even have a jury trial for a president? isnt the jury supposed to not have a preexisting opinion of the person being charged?

        • From a jury I was being considered for (sexual assault), is not that you have no opinion, it is that you think you can be objective based on the evidence.

          • @Patches@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            84 months ago

            Right which a Magat thinks he will be.

            'Fuck your feelings. We use logic over here in the sane world" - Literal Snowflake

            • @Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              64 months ago

              Yea that’s what I was thinking too. It’s more likely a left leaning person recuse themselves for their impartiality than a right leaning person who already thinks Trump is being wrongfully prosecuted.

              • @Natanael@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                24 months ago

                That’s why both sides’ lawyers gets to request to exclude potential jurors which they think would be biased

        • @stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          24 months ago

          A jury only needs to convince the judge and both parties that they can rule impartially on the law.

      • SGG
        link
        fedilink
        English
        214 months ago

        Sadly true. However given jury selection is a thing, you can bet that prosecution did their best to weed out any overly biased jurors.

        I mean, nothing is perfect (it’s humans all the way down, and humans are flawed), but for a trial like this you can bet both sides went over everyone with the biggest magnifying glass they could find.

      • @AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        104 months ago

        One of the cases in NY his lawyers failed to request a jury trial, and is being adjudicated by the judge who clearly has no love for the defendant, and seems to be doing everything he can to avoid an appeal, much less a mistrial. That one is sticking .

      • @LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s true, but in every case against him with a jury so far, he’s still lost, even though a few jurors were trump supporters. When presented with the evidence in a forum where they have to listen, where that evidence wasn’t filtered through their lunatic talking heads, and where they couldn’t immediately run to their extremist forums to filter and reinterpret it for them, they’ve realised that oh yeah, this guy is a criminal and they’ve been duped.

        I’m not concerned about rogue jurors. Many of his supporters can come back to reality when that reality is no longer filtered through a bullshit lens. Watch The Brainwashing of My Dad on Netflix (e: it’s no longer on Netflix. So Freevee, Prime, or Apple TV, I guess. I added the IMdB link, which includes places to watch it now). It covers much of that effect.

    • This is one indictment, with 34 counts. And it’s probably worth noting that if he were to be convicted, the charges would likely be consolidated at sentencing; 34 counts does not mean that he would be sentenced to 34x as much jail time. Not to mention that since these all stem from the same set of facts, it’s most likely all or nothing.

      • @LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        84 months ago

        At his age and health, only a couple of years would effectively be a death sentence.

        Having to live in a cell without his luxuries, entourage, and Diet Coke button would break him pretty quickly. He’d likely have a heart attack from the stress and indignation far before even a short sentence was over.