Legally the judge can’t even allow the jury to decide the case.
I don’t even know how he concocts jury instruction for the law.
Saying he influenced an election illegally but providing no statute that was violated while influencing said election? How can a jury decide a case without a law. What law are they supposed to apply the evidence to??
This is CRAZY.
“Saying he influenced an election illegally but providing no statute that was violated while influencing said election? How can a jury decide a case without a law. What law are they supposed to apply the evidence to??”
Don’t get too hung up on this.
Prosecuting a black man for raping a white woman in rural Mississippi in 1868 had little to do with law or facts.
Same strategy here. Try someone you hate in a place where everyone already intensely dislikes him and thinks he is guilty of something or the other. And then throw a bunch of feces up against the wall. Law and facts don’t matter much.
You have a judge who is either scared to buck the hatred or he is caught up in the lynching enthusiasm and a jury that is ready to lynch.