NY: Trump on Trial!

[emailking]

Defense had a good day, for once, and made Cohen look bad, but impugning his credibility on the call about the prank caller doesn't erase all the other circumstantial evidence, or the evidence of the Trump tower meeting, which they didn't even attempt to touch it seems. It was all character attack on Cohen.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Defense had a good day, for once, and made Cohen look bad, but impugning his credibility on the call about the prank caller doesn't erase all the other circumstantial evidence, or the evidence of the Trump tower meeting, which they didn't even attempt to touch it seems. It was all character attack on Cohen.

Yeah I don’t get it, if the prosecution was heavily reliant on Cohen that’d be one thing but there is too much of a paper trail collaborating what he’s saying that that been presented

[Dereich]

Why would he consider it, given how the defendant has treated his courtroom?

At least here if the crime has lesser-included misdemeanors built in (for example, petit theft is always a lesser included offense of grand theft) it is up to the defendant if they want the lesser included as an option. The only way the judge would be able to keep out a lesser included misdemeanor would be if he found that the evidence could not possibly support a jury finding for the elements of that misdemeanor. Any ambiguity would be resolved in favor of what the defendant wanted; they're the ones with liberty at stake.

Defense not bringing a case would really be a major issue for jurors imo. I've been a part of a jury before, and people take seriously the overarching things like that - which side presented more evidence than the other. The fact that the prosecution has had numerous witnesses and then the defense just kind of sits it out will be a key factor I think, and telling. Prosecution always starts from a better place just because of how trials are situated, but a defense without almost anybody gives them even more disadvantages.

Not a lawyer but doesn't it seem like a no brainer for the prosecution to mention that fact?
So many people were involved in this case and yet nobody stepped up to defend Trump and explain why he is innocent.

But that's not what a criminal trial is about. No juror is going to be asked to decide if Trump was "innocent." The question is guilty or not guilty; the focus is not on the defendant but on the prosecution's case. Since a criminal trial is about only whether the State has met its high burden of proof, unless very specific defenses (which are not relevant here) are put forward the defense does not have to prove anything. If the prosecution tried to argue that nobody was being presented to defend Trump the result would be a swift mistrial charged against the prosecution for improperly shifting their  burden to the defense.

Serious question: what does the defense’s case look like if they don’t call a single witness to the stand?

It sounds like they are calling expert witnesses, which seems like a pretty reasonable strategy to me.  If you can convince the jury that there is a reasonable interpretation of the law under which Trump isn’t guilty of the crime even if you accept all the prosecution’s facts, you don’t need to contest any of the prosecution’s facts.

Potentially one expert witness — but they haven’t decided to call him yet. I’m just posing the hypothetical that they don’t, which seems bad for their case.

Even still, I don’t think the defense has painted a clear narrative for an alternative reason/interpretation yet.

Same issue here. The defense needs only establish "reasonable" doubt. They don't need to present one specific theory and say its more likely than the prosecution's theory. Just giving the jury the idea that there are plausible other reasons for Trump's actions could be enough for reasonable doubt. That's the law at least. Of course a reason I always tell victims/witnesses that juries are forces of darkness. In any case that goes to trial there's zero guarantee that the jury follows that law once they're in that room deliberating. Its a big part of the reason so few people roll the dice and go to trial. You never know what the jurors will latch onto and what will inform their verdicts.

[Landslide Lyndon]

But that's not what a criminal trial is about. No juror is going to be asked to decide if Trump was "innocent." The question is guilty or not guilty; the focus is not on the defendant but on the prosecution's case. Since a criminal trial is about only whether the State has met its high burden of proof, unless very specific defenses (which are not relevant here) are put forward the defense does not have to prove anything. If the prosecution tried to argue that nobody was being presented to defend Trump the result would be a swift mistrial charged against the prosecution for improperly shifting their  burden to the defense.

That's all very nice in theory but if I were a juror in a serious case like this it would have certainly raised an eyebrow if the defendant didn't have a single person as a defence witness.

[Dereich]

But that's not what a criminal trial is about. No juror is going to be asked to decide if Trump was "innocent." The question is guilty or not guilty; the focus is not on the defendant but on the prosecution's case. Since a criminal trial is about only whether the State has met its high burden of proof, unless very specific defenses (which are not relevant here) are put forward the defense does not have to prove anything. If the prosecution tried to argue that nobody was being presented to defend Trump the result would be a swift mistrial charged against the prosecution for improperly shifting their  burden to the defense.

That's all very nice in theory but if I were a juror in a serious case like this it would have certainly raised an eyebrow if the defendant didn't have a single person as a defence witness.

That's supposed to be a big part of jury selection; figuring out who will follow the judge's instructions on the law. And the law unambiguously says that the defense does not have to prove anything. I picked a jury earlier this week. We had three potential jurors eliminated for cause because they said they really wanted the defendant to testify and would probably hold it against him if he chose to not to do so. Another one was eliminated for saying that they would need the defense to present at least a few witnesses or pieces of evidence to find him not guilty. You can never know what they'll do once they're in the room deliberating but you can at least get the ones who will admit it eliminated before they make it there.

As much as I hate to admit it, the defense did not present any evidence in the case this week and yes, the defendant was found not guilty. Again, you never know how it'll go with the forces of darkness.

[SteveRogers]

Defense not bringing a case would really be a major issue for jurors imo. I've been a part of a jury before, and people take seriously the overarching things like that - which side presented more evidence than the other. The fact that the prosecution has had numerous witnesses and then the defense just kind of sits it out will be a key factor I think, and telling. Prosecution always starts from a better place just because of how trials are situated, but a defense without almost anybody gives them even more disadvantages.

Not a lawyer but doesn't it seem like a no brainer for the prosecution to mention that fact?
So many people were involved in this case and yet nobody stepped up to defend Trump and explain why he is innocent.

The prosecution is not allowed to mention that.

The prosecution can argue in closing about the absence of specific witnesses or evidence that the defense brought up themselves but failed to produce. But the prosecution absolutely cannot remark on the Defendant’s refusal to take the stand or shift the burden by arguing that the defense declined to call any witnesses.

[The Mikado]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

Sorry all. I did jinx it.

Acquittal or hung jury is of course going to happen. Trump probably gets re-elected, and everything continues to suck.

What the hell, man?

Obviously this isn't a slam dunk but this trial very much leans towards the prosecution.

[soundchaser]

Same issue here. The defense needs only establish "reasonable" doubt. They don't need to present one specific theory and say its more likely than the prosecution's theory. Just giving the jury the idea that there are plausible other reasons for Trump's actions could be enough for reasonable doubt. That's the law at least. Of course a reason I always tell victims/witnesses that juries are forces of darkness. In any case that goes to trial there's zero guarantee that the jury follows that law once they're in that room deliberating. Its a big part of the reason so few people roll the dice and go to trial. You never know what the jurors will latch onto and what will inform their verdicts.

Fair -- and I openly admit that I am not a lawyer. Let me rephrase: it seems TO ME, as a hypothetical juror, that the competing narratives the defense has tried to get to stick (first "he didn't do it," then "he did it but he didn't know," now "he didn't do it, but in any case it's not illegal") mean none of them  provide enough reasonable doubt. "He did it for his family" does, but I think the prosecution has done a good enough job explaining why that's not the case, as I suspect they will hammer in both their redirect of Cohen and their closing arguments.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

Sorry all. I did jinx it.

Acquittal or hung jury is of course going to happen. Trump probably gets re-elected, and everything continues to suck.

What the hell, man?

Obviously this isn't a slam dunk but this trial very much leans towards the prosecution.

Not a slam dunk might as well mean they lost the case, these days.

[HisGrace]

Defense had a good day, for once, and made Cohen look bad, but impugning his credibility on the call about the prank caller doesn't erase all the other circumstantial evidence, or the evidence of the Trump tower meeting, which they didn't even attempt to touch it seems. It was all character attack on Cohen.

Not sure why it was such a good day, Cohen is not the one on trial and none of that had anything to do with the charges.

[emailking]

The only direct evidence that Trump knew about the scheme to falsify the business records is Cohen's testimony. So if they can convince jurors that his testimony can't be trusted that might given them reasonable doubt as to Trump's knowledge of the scheme. And they definitely showed that he has lied about a lot of things in the past. Not saying it's enough to doubt his testimony (not like we weren't expecting it), or to conclude there isn't enough other circumstantial evidence that Trump knew they were falsified, but it's the biggest glove they've laid on the prosecution's case so far.

[Redban]

I wonder if the jury won’t find this confusing .. the hush money contract is characterized on record by a key witness as a “perfectly legal contract.” So what was fraudulent was that payment for the perfectly legal contract was written in the books as “legal services” instead of something else (what it should have been written as, who knows .. prosecution never said )

I presume the prosecution didn’t object to this exchange. So they concede the hush money contract was legal

https://nypost.com/2024/05/16/us-news/trumps-hush-money-nyc-trial-live-updates-testimony-photos-more-2/

Jurors were shown the hush money contract struck with Stormy Daniels during Cohen's cross-examination.

“In your mind, then and now, this is a perfectly legal contract, correct?” Trump attorney Todd Blanche asked Cohen about the nondisclosure agreement.

“Yes sir,” Cohen said.

Blanche also noted that Trump did not sign the contract

[emailking]

Redban, they didn't pay him to administer the contract (which had been done a long time ago when most of these payments to him were made). That could be legal services I guess. But they were paying him back for the money he spent out of pocket to act as Trump's middleman. They paid it to him as salary and doubled it so that after taxes he would get back the exact amount he paid out pocket. And they're characterizing that as legal services. It's not.

[Redban]

Redban, they didn't pay him to administer the contract (which had been done a long time ago when most of these payments to him were made). That could be legal services I guess. But they were paying him back for the money he spent out of pocket to act as Trump's middleman. They paid it to him as salary and doubled it so that after taxes he would get back the exact amount he paid out pocket. And they're characterizing that as legal services. It's not.

So now it’s the mere fact that Cohen paid with his own money first and got reimbursed? That’s the whole reason it’s no longer “legal services”?  If Trump had paid the $130k from the start (foregoing the need for reimbursements), then there would’ve been no falsifying records? Sounds like splitting hairs.

The other stuff about covering for taxes and such is shaky because I think some money was given as a bonus and for tech services (or something like that). My understanding is that the IRS didn’t lose any money from those reimbursements to cover Cohen’s taxes, so that line of prosecution might carry little force with ordinary folks. In fact, I think the IRS got more money in the end because of the extra reimbursements to cover Cohen’s taxes

[emailking]

No. No. Depends.

[wbrocks67]

The only direct evidence that Trump knew about the scheme to falsify the business records is Cohen's testimony. So if they can convince jurors that his testimony can't be trusted that might given them reasonable doubt as to Trump's knowledge of the scheme. And they definitely showed that he has lied about a lot of things in the past. Not saying it's enough to doubt his testimony (not like we weren't expecting it), or to conclude there isn't enough other circumstantial evidence that Trump knew they were falsified, but it's the biggest glove they've laid on the prosecution's case so far.

The thing is, even if Cohen is slimey and has lied about some things, the point at the end of the day is - you don't need to believe Cohen 100% in everything he says, you just have to believe Cohen when he talks about the Trump records part of it. And given the other circumstantial evidence that supports Cohens claims, that at least backs up Cohens claims about that situation, outside of whether Cohen is telling the truth about other things.

[Badger]

I'm probably going to jinx it, but here it goes: is it me? Or is this trial going unusually well for the prosecution?

Sorry all. I did jinx it.

Acquittal or hung jury is of course going to happen. Trump probably gets re-elected, and everything continues to suck.

I think you are overreacting.

I hope so, but this isnlt the development the prosecution needed in the home stretch.

You are both correct.

[HisGrace]

The only direct evidence that Trump knew about the scheme to falsify the business records is Cohen's testimony. So if they can convince jurors that his testimony can't be trusted that might given them reasonable doubt as to Trump's knowledge of the scheme. And they definitely showed that he has lied about a lot of things in the past. Not saying it's enough to doubt his testimony (not like we weren't expecting it), or to conclude there isn't enough other circumstantial evidence that Trump knew they were falsified, but it's the biggest glove they've laid on the prosecution's case so far.

The thing is, even if Cohen is slimey and has lied about some things, the point at the end of the day is - you don't need to believe Cohen 100% in everything he says, you just have to believe Cohen when he talks about the Trump records part of it. And given the other circumstantial evidence that supports Cohens claims, that at least backs up Cohens claims about that situation, outside of whether Cohen is telling the truth about other things.

Right, all kinds of organized crime convictions occur where the key witnesses are deeply immoral and dishonest people. What matters is if his testimony fits the outline of facts which it does. "This person has lied before" is not the big own they think it is, I mean he was Trump's lawyer so no **** what do you expect?

Even red avs are buying into Republicans bad faith muddying of facts here because they've been so persistent about it.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The only direct evidence that Trump knew about the scheme to falsify the business records is Cohen's testimony. So if they can convince jurors that his testimony can't be trusted that might given them reasonable doubt as to Trump's knowledge of the scheme. And they definitely showed that he has lied about a lot of things in the past. Not saying it's enough to doubt his testimony (not like we weren't expecting it), or to conclude there isn't enough other circumstantial evidence that Trump knew they were falsified, but it's the biggest glove they've laid on the prosecution's case so far.

The thing is, even if Cohen is slimey and has lied about some things, the point at the end of the day is - you don't need to believe Cohen 100% in everything he says, you just have to believe Cohen when he talks about the Trump records part of it. And given the other circumstantial evidence that supports Cohens claims, that at least backs up Cohens claims about that situation, outside of whether Cohen is telling the truth about other things.

Right, all kinds of organized crime convictions occur where the key witnesses are deeply immoral and dishonest people. What matters is if his testimony fits the outline of facts which it does. "This person has lied before" is not the big own they think it is, I mean he was Trump's lawyer so no **** what do you expect?

Even red avs are buying into Republicans bad faith muddying of facts here because they've been so persistent about it.

We've become accustomed to disappointment and expecting the worst out of our legal system, and fellow citizens.