turtle

Right, but we're discussing the new federal charges that have been added, as reported in the OP story.

Absolutely. I'm glad that I usually avoid links to them.

I read a blog that analyses a lot of financial and other news and they use this term frequently. It took me a while to figure it out because I was more familiar with the acronym you mentioned.

What a sorry excuse for "journalism". SMH

Yes. Also, see my edit. I found the law for New York. For a felony of this type, each side gets 20 for regular jurors plus 2 for each alternate juror.

It can be used for either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRE

This is correct. I've been in two juries that went to trial, and each side got a handful of denials that they could use, each. Like 5 for my cases, or something in that ballpark. I think that the number is at the discretion of the judge, so because there is so much sympathy for the defendant, the judge may allow a much larger number of denials.

Disclaimer: I have no legal training and my trials were not in New York, so my comments could be inaccurate.

Edit: according to this article, this is the number of peremptory challenges (i.e., objecting to a juror during selection for no reason) each side gets - https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-270-25/

2. Each party must be allowed the following number of peremptory challenges:

(a) Twenty for the regular jurors if the highest crime charged is a class A felony, and two for each alternate juror to be selected.

This is in addition to presumably an infinite number of juror dismissals for cause, like, for example, if the juror tells that the judge that they would not be able to follow the law.

I don't think that's why they charged him with terrorism. The reason that some terrorism trials are (were?) done in secret in the past I believe is because most of the evidence that would have been presented would have been classified. I don't think there is any classified evidence related to Luigi's trial.

I think it's more likely that they added the terrorism charge just as an enhancement to potentially add time to his sentence or more opportunities for him to be convicted of something. However, someone posted an insightful comment here a couple of days ago, pointing out that in order to prove terrorism they will have to discuss his motivations at length, which will only make him more sympathetic to most jurors.

Thanks, this sounds like the most accurate and precise answer to the question.

I'm pretty sure it does. It won't happen, but a president could pardon someone from federal crimes.

For sure, I thought the same thing.

This title almost sounds like a setup for a joke or something.