I'll have to research that. NY enhancement statutes have some weird, constitutionally dubious provisions, if I recall. Hate crime laws were particularly bad. 

I haven't followed it all that closely either, but the escalation to a felony charge is predicated on there being an underlying crime and Trump has never been convicted of any of the potential underlying crimes.

It just seems to me like you would have to be convicted of a particular crime in order for it to serve as a predicate for that escalation.

Undisciplined

Generally speaking, there has to be a unanimous verdict finding guilt of a particular crime beyond a reasonable doubt. All the jurors don't have to agree on what the underlying facts are that constituted that crime. I haven't paid attention to this case. How did the instructions differ from this general principle? 

siggy47

news

"I Just Donated $300k To Trump"

Why doesn't there have to be a conviction for the underlying crimes, though?

This seems like a glaring violation of due process.