Again, judges don't like to dissent from other judges. MOO I still don't see any reason for any successful appeals.
@RANCH I know youll likely reply that you still see bias in the judge despite me going through the motions in why the judge was methodical and validated in their rules... and that's fine. We'll quite literally see for ourselves what will fly with the courts. The question is, will you be okay with what the appellate court decides? Or deny it and chalk it up to misconduct like this trial?
The judge determined that despite Trump’s unpopularity in Manhattan, a fair trial could be conducted through careful jury selection and instructions, as upheld in similar high-profile cases (e.g., Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010)). Proper
voir dire ensures unbiased jurors are selected, addressing potential prejudice.
The prosecution argued that the Trump Organization,
involved in Trump’s personal and business dealings, constitutes an enterprise under the law. This is consistent with legal interpretations where personal and business records are intertwined (e.g., United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (1981)), making it valid for prosecution purposes.
While complex jury instructions can be grounds for appeal,
appellate courts often defer to the trial judge’s discretion unless there’s a clear error affecting the trial’s outcome. The prosecution would argue that the instructions, though complex, were accurate and did not mislead the jury,
as supported by precedents like Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145 (1977).
