Trump helps NY Terrorist


#1

Trump decides to help terrorist by influencing the case by giving he defense some help.

Brilliant, just brilliant.


#2

Same thing with Bowe Bergdahl. Whatever you think about him and his sentence, Trump tweeting about it gives the defense ammo in an appeal.


#3

BS. He’s already been sentenced. If he appeals, the decision MAY be overturned and retried and he COULD then get the death penalty.


#4

If this guy is tried for the FEDERAL crime of terrorism, he SHOUILD get the death penalty. Is he going to plead “not guilty” because he didn’t DO it???


#5

You misunderstand.

First, this is America where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, no matter how obvious it is that you are guilty. Those rules are in place, not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent!

The defense will claim (in both cases), rightly so, that the President’s public comments can taint the jury and prevent the perpetrator from getting a fair trial, something they are entitled to.


#6

And that makes it somehow RIGHT for him to be freed? You CAN’T possibly be that ignorant. BTW, the “law” doesn’t say that someone is “innocent until proven guilty.” It says, “for the purposes of a trial, the accused is PRESUMED innocent, until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt by the weight of competent evidence.” That’s a HUGE difference between that and “innocent until proven guilty.” If he did it…he DID it…period…end of discussion


#7

Not the terrorist; he’d only be prevented in getting the Death penalty.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who got himself be captured by the Taliban, is the one who might get off.


#8

That applies to the jury and or the judge(should they opt out of a jury trial). It does not apply to anyone else.

It is true that Trump is no longer eligible to sit on a jury for either case. There is no broader issue.


#9

Too late. He’s already been sentenced. He’d be an IDIOT to appeal his sentence. If it’s overturned, he’ll need to be RE-tried and may very well get an even harsher sentence that way. Frankly, I hope he DOES appeal and get his “sentence” overturned just so that could happen. His current sentence was a JOKE.


#10

Jury’s are not “tainted” by others speaking their opinions on what the sentence should be, jury’s are tainted by being closely connected to the case or community where the crime was committed or by gaining access to pertinent information that has been deemed inadmissible.

No legitimate court would grant an appeal based on the President voicing his opinion that the sentence should be death for the one guilty of any crime.

Finding a legitimate court that respects the law is another matter, and may very well be an impossible quest these days.


#11

Which is PRECISELY why no “grand jury” empaneled in Washington D.C. should ever be allowed to hear a case involving any conservative.