Spoken with True Conviction

UPDATE:  What I wrote below is based on incorrect information.  I thought, being a civil trial, the jury vote only had to be a majority of jurors, as is the case in California.  But it turns out that in New York, it has to be unanimous.

I nonetheless stand by the thinking in what I wrote, if not the specifics.  But I do stand by my comment that it is more likely for there to be a unanimous guilty verdict rather than an acquittal.

That said, here's what I wrote --

---

The Trump case has now gone to the jury.  Before they return – which is why I’m posting this earlier than usual – I thought I’d give my expert analysis of what I think may happen.

And by “expert analysis,” I qualify that as having absolutely no legal background, and didn’t sit in the trial to watch the evidence or cross-examinations.  So, take it for what it’s worth, which is highly discounted.

The other day, I checked to see the breakdown of the jury, and Trump really lucked out here.  It’s six men and three women.  If there had been five women on the jury, I think the case would be over, since – being a civil trial – only a majority of voters are needed to convict.  (And yes, there are only nine people on the jury.)

Have watched the most damning material from Trump’s video deposition, where he himself is his worst witness – starting with his “million years” of sexual abuse statement, followed by “unfortunately” and then (for reasons known only to his warped mind) “or fortunately”.  Along with going on about his “type” – as if there’s a good type to rape – and telling the opposing attorney she’s not his type.  As well as the Access: Hollywood “p*ssy” tape and more – it seems hard for him to imagine the three women on the jury voting for acquittal.

That means Trump has to win over five of the six men on the jury.  That seems an incredibly high wall to climb – even if it’s a wall Mexico pays for.  Which means if only four of the six men vote to acquit, then Trump with be found guilty, by a count of 5-4.

I certainly accept that it could be acquittal.  But given the hurdle Trump has to cross and this as the starting point, I think he will be convicted.

The first of the remaining questions is what the vote will be.  Making a pure guess, I’d be surprised if it’s not at least 7-2 to convict.  Could it even be unanimous?  Honestly, I think there is a better chance of a unanimous vote for conviction than one to acquit.

(By the way, if Trump is convicted by jury vote in the E. Jean Carroll case, I wonder if he'll call the jury foreman and ask him to find the few votes he needs for acquittal. "Come on, just three votes, give me a break.")

The only remaining question is that – because it’s up to the jury to determine damages – what will they be?  I don’t have a clue, in large part because it depends on what the vote is.  If it turns out the vote to convict is unanimous, what I’d love is for them to do is act on that certain.  And make a money judgement that means something, that matters, that hurts.

End of meaningless expert analysis.  But...we'll see.