1. Two attorneys are on the jury in People v. Trump. If those attorney-jurors carefully analyze the legal elements, as I have done, as @RDEliason has done, and aren't swayed by emotion, this may be favorable for defendant Trump
2. Specially, it is questionable whether the DA can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump filed false business records with the required intent to defraud and with the, additional, required intent to conceal or commit another crime. One would expect attorney-jurors to
3. be very particular in their analysis of the legal elements required to establish the Penal Law 175.10 felonies. And, among those elements, intent to defraud and intent to conceal or commit another crime will be hotly contested.
4. Whatever determination the attorney-jurors reach regarding those legal elements will likely carry great weight with the other jurors who don't have any training or experience in the law. If I were representing the People in this case, as a general matter, I wouldn't want an
5. attorney as a juror. Rather, I would want persons with no legal training or experience who, perhaps, are more likely to be swayed by emotion and far less likely to carefully analyze the essential legal elements the DA must establish BARD.
6. That being said, there may be other things in the backgrounds of the attorney-jurors that suggest that, despite the legal technicalities that this case involves (specifically the mens rea requirements), they will be favorable to the prosecution. Time will tell.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
