• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Trump Guilty of Sexual Abuse.

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
Just out if curiosity, which time were you untruthful?

Here?

That is, NY State's justice. :)
Law here is something serious.

Or earlier when I called you out on you uninformed bigotry and said,

I don'y deny anything.
It's a very flawed system, since procurators and prosecutors are free to make mistakes and nothing happens to them.

I have never meant that the system here is better.

And yet, here you are doing that very thing. Again.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You're not alone, others have asked the same in other threads. And I stated a couple of times that the change in limitations was not retroactive (like here and here) so, it's not like it hasn't been stated before.
BTW, Italy has statutes of limitations too.
And it needs reform.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Actually it would have taken two MAGA Republicans to get him off. This was a New York State civil trial and unanimous vote was not necessary. It only takes 5/6 of the jurors to vote for the plaintiff. Since there were nine jurors and there is no rounding up in this case it would have taken eight out of the nine.
This is actually incorrect. It required a unanimous verdict. The one MAGA could have gotten him off:

"For Carroll to win her civil claim for sexual battery, the jury of six men and three women must reach a unanimous verdict based on “a preponderance of the evidence”​
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Republican governor John Kasich predicts these legal cases going against Trump will shift the attitude of conservative voters, and doesn't see how Trump can win again. He says many republicans in congress are still afraid of Trump but don't support his run for president.
*optimistic frubal*

One can hope, though early polling data doesn't seem to reflect Republicans defecting from Trump en masse.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
This is actually incorrect. It required a unanimous verdict. The one MAGA could have gotten him off:

"For Carroll to win her civil claim for sexual battery, the jury of six men and three women must reach a unanimous verdict based on “a preponderance of the evidence”​
There are times to trust news articles and there are times to trust the experts in the field:


That is three sources on New York state civil lawsuits All of them say that at least five sixths of the jurors need to vote for the plaintiff to win their case. The five sixths figure is used because the number can vary from six to twelve. In this case since seven ninths is less than five sixths it would have taken eight out of the nine.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
There are times to trust news articles and there are times to trust the experts in the field:


That is three sources on New York state civil lawsuits All of them say that at least five sixths of the jurors need to vote for the plaintiff to win their case. The five sixths figure is used because the number can vary from six to twelve. In this case since seven ninths is less than five sixths it would have taken eight out of the nine.
It seems their are conflicting links.


Fourth paragraph down under "In the Jury Room"

"In a criminal case all jurors must agree on the verdict. This is also required in a civil case, unless the jury is otherwise instructed by the court".

 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It seems their are conflicting links.


Fourth paragraph down under "In the Jury Room"

"In a criminal case all jurors must agree on the verdict. This is also required in a civil case, unless the jury is otherwise instructed by the court".

Interesting. That is the first source that made that claim that I have seen. In fact in the jstor link quite clearly disagrees with that:

1683848452496.png
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It seems their are conflicting links.


Fourth paragraph down under "In the Jury Room"

"In a criminal case all jurors must agree on the verdict. This is also required in a civil case, unless the jury is otherwise instructed by the court".

I found yet another source that may clear this up. New York has quite a few different civil courts. In the district court it is unanimous. In all others the 5/6 rule applies:

 

We Never Know

No Slack
Yes, I just found that too. Most of the articles that I searched were not clear until good old Wikipedia made it clear:


Here is one that is clear...

""You must hold him to account for what he's done," Carroll's lawyer Roberta Kaplan said, as she delivered the closing argument to jurors in U.S. District Court in Manhattan for a civil trial, where Trump is accused of battery and of defaming the writer."

 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There are times to trust news articles and there are times to trust the experts in the field:


That is three sources on New York state civil lawsuits All of them say that at least five sixths of the jurors need to vote for the plaintiff to win their case. The five sixths figure is used because the number can vary from six to twelve. In this case since seven ninths is less than five sixths it would have taken eight out of the nine.
Every single news article and every single legal expert that I heard or read all said the same thing, "The verdict was required to be unanimous," or "The jury's decision had to be unanimous."

Perhaps it was in this particular instance for legal reasons you are unaware of, but I cannot accept that all the legal experts were wrong. Why would the legal experts who all commented on this, all saying the exact same thing be mistaken, while you as a non-legal expert are right on?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Every single news article and every single legal expert that I heard or read all said the same thing, "The verdict was required to be unanimous," or "The jury's decision had to be unanimous."

Perhaps it was in this particular instance for legal reasons you are unaware of, but I cannot accept that all the legal experts were wrong. Why would the legal experts who all commented on this, all saying the exact same thing be mistaken, while you as a non-legal expert are right on?
If you keep reading along it turns out that a unanimous vote was needed. I had seen articles that said a unanimous vote was not needed. There are something like five or six different types of civil courts in New York state. In all but one type the rule is 5/6. But in New York district civil courts the rule is a unanimous vote. And this was a district court case.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If you keep reading along it turns out that a unanimous vote was needed. I had seen articles that said a unanimous vote was not needed. There are something like five or six different types of civil courts in New York state. In all but one type the rule is 5/6. But in New York district civil courts the rule is a unanimous vote. And this was a district court case.
That's what I remember hearing as well.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
Trump is appealing the decision.

And Carroll might sue him again.

 
Top