Jury says Trump has to pay $5 million to woman who accused him of rape

Facts:
1. Evidence is always excluded by judges
2. Government and so the judiciary are inherently evil institutions and corrupt.

Do you agree? Or not?

 

A few ideas for reforming the system:

1. Eliminate the rules of evidence in favor of a short summary of why the rules were created for the jury's review before the start of the trial and during deliberations.
No "objections".
2. Eliminate voire dire. Seat a totally random jury from a pool who have filled out a form with a few basic questions -- relationship to the parties, personal interest in outcome etc.
3. Expand the size of juries and eliminate the unanimity requirement. Example: 12/15 to convict or acquit.
4. Set a time limit for trials to encourage the lawyers to present their strongest case quickly. Long trials favor the wealthy. and connected.

 

Explanation: Juries were not created to answer to judges.

Clear enough?

 

Correct. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Plaintiff's should be requirer by law to act quickly, and complaints filed without substantial credible corroboration should be dismissed with prejudice.

 

You are probably right about AA eventually being eliminated, but keep in mind the nature and extent of the wrong that created a political consensus for AA.

Black Americans were again effectively disenfranchised after reconstruction in 1876 when the DP controlled SCOTUS effectively nullified the 14th and 15th Amendments and thus equal protection in 1876 through US vs. Reese and US vs. Cruickshank.
How long does it take to redress that kind of wrong?

 

I strongly doubt we're going to revamp our trial by jury system.

 

Alas

 

FFS do you even know what voir dire is?

They're not on the jury until they pass that. They're just an array at that point.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/voir_dire
https://www.douglascountyks.org/depts/clerk-district-court/faq/what-voir-dire-and-what-its-purpose

 

Juries are part of the judicial system because we have a right to be judged on our facts by a group of impartial peers.

Again: Voir dire has been a part of the process the ENTIRE time.
Do you even know what the process is?

 

I sure do know what voire dire is.

Voire Dire: Tampering with the jury pool = jury tampering. Think it through.

 

The Founders, even the more elitist Founders recognized that a justice system was just a necessary evil, and that it was inherently corrupt -- especially judges and other "officers of the court". Juries are viewed as the best, even if imperfect check on that inherent corruption, and voire dire was very limited.
Juries also may also make a judgement as to the law.


The Founders did not trust the institutions of government.

 

No its choosing the jury out of the pool. A jury is 12. You realize more than 12 come in the ****ing room right?

Voir dire = the statutorily prescribed process of selecting an impartial jury.

 

And yet it was a thing. SO please stop with this asinine bullshit.

 

Can he appeal the appeal ruling?

'Judge denies Trump's request for new trial in E. Jean Carroll case'
Source: ABC News

'A federal judge in New York on Wednesday denied former President Donald Trump's request for a new trial in the defamation and battery case brought by E. Jean Carroll that resulted in a $5 million damage award.

Trump had sought a new trial after a New York jury in May found him liable for sexually assaulting the former Elle magazine columnist in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the 1990s, then defaming her in a 2022 Truth Social post by calling her allegations "a Hoax and a lie."

Judge Lewis Kaplan denied the request, saying, "The jury in this case did not reach 'a seriously erroneous result.'" "Its verdict is not 'a miscarriage of justice,'" the judge said.

In rendering its verdict in May, the jury held Trump liable for battering Carroll, but did not find that he raped her as alleged, instead holding him liable for sexual assault. Jury members awarded Carroll damages of $2 million in compensatory damages and $20,000 in punitive damages for battery, as well as $1 million in damages, $1.7 million for reputation repair, and $280,000 in punitive damages, for defamation.'

Read more: https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-denies-trumps-request-new-trial-jean-carroll/story?id=101485996

 

Being reported that Joe Tapiaco got paid 1.5 million for Carroll case.
Oh, he lost it too. lol

 

Normally federal courts do not have jurisdiction over decisions made in state courts.

(Not unless there are some major Constitutional issues, like civil rights violations or the death penalty)

I mean theoretically state courts have to defer to federal courts, but that is not seen as the appropriate area of jurisdiction for federal courts.

I suspect the New York state Supreme Court will decline to take the case. They could use the excuse that the case was not important enough to get involved, but I also suspect they would be loathe to want to help Trump out. There is a lot of bias against Trump in the state politics in that state.

That comment demonstrates to me that judge is either an extremely biased activist doing his part to try to make sure this absurd lawsuit succeeds, or an extreme progressive who believes men should have to pay women lots of money based on only the unsubstantiated allegation of a woman, even if dubious and even if it happened a long time ago and she never bothered to report it until now.

In my opinion, what the state of New York has essentially done is used a cheap false witness off the street to legally steal $5 million from Trump (more in legal expenses) and sully his reputation.

The state politicians intentionally passed a law that allowed them to do this. But someone as despised as Trump was unlikely to find any justice in that area, and apparently that includes a judge, a jury (which is not completely randomly chosen, by the way), and the judges on the appeals court.