NY: Trump on Trial!

[Dereich]

So, delayed until April 29?

I guess there is time now for Trump's immunity claim to work its way up all the way to the SCOTUS.

"Up to 30 days" from Mar. 25th is Apr. 24th, the day before SCOTUS' Apr. 25th oral arguments on presidential immunity.

You don't start the trial on Wednesday.

....



I'm sorry, I must've missed that clause in the 32nd Amendment to the New York State Constitution.

Well, we'll see.
Trials usually start on Mondays.

Its a good point. Jury panels are usually ordered in for Mondays to minimize the disruption for the venire and allow for as efficient a voir dire as possible. Starting on Wednesday would mean telling in this case probably hundreds of panel members that they'll have to cancel vacations, arrange child care, cancel medical appointments etc. for multiple weeks before they even know if they're on the jury.

Jury selection for any criminal case involving Trump sounds like an absolute nightmare. How do you find a panel of jurors without preconceived biases around the most famous man in the world?

[Dereich]

I am also confident that they can find 12+ Manhattanites who can set aside what they know about Trump and what they know about this case to judge his guilt or lack thereof solely based on the evidence presented at trial. Most jurors take the job seriously, feel the gravity of the moment, and rise to the occasion.

Absolutely not. Jurors are forces of darkness, making decisions on what will be totally unknowable and oftentimes irrelevant criteria. No matter how good or bad a case is, nobody can be sure what the forces of darkness will care about or how they will act when they get their hands on it. That, as much as any other reason, is why so many cases resolve in plea deals.

Also, while I agree that the Trump team did no favors to themselves by putting out that survey, its wrong to treat the answers that were highlighted the same. While the "definitely" people would be fine if you said you could only "probably" put your opinions aside and rule on the evidence that'd be grounds to strike you. In my jury selections I compare it to landing a plane. If you say you can "probably" land the plane safely its going to be treated as a no.

[Dereich]

Here is a extream TDS liberal who actually does a decent breakdown

https://www.sidebarsblog.com/p/trump-goes-to-trial

I looked over this article, and this part surprised me:

Alternatively, the defense will argue that even if Trump did intend to falsify the documents, he had no intent to further another crime and the jury should find him guilty only of a misdemeanor. The jury will have that option as to each count; the misdemeanor charge is what’s known as a lesser included offense.

This conflicts with what I have read elsewhere.  I had thought that the misdemeanor charge was not currently an option for the jury, and that one of the lawyers would have to bring a motion for it to bt included.  Does anyone have a definitive answer on this?

The jury may decide to convict on a simpler misdemeanor charge, but acquit on a more convoluted felony charge.
If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

But again, this conflicts with Redban's immediately previous post, where he links to the Politico article claiming that Trump's lawyers would have to file a motion that the misdemeanor charges be included as an option before the jury could even consider them.  This is the uncertainty I'm trying to resolve.

Yes, that is an option, and the defense will pursue it depending on how the trial goes.
But if you ask me, there is no harm in including these lesser charges as they give the jury an easy way out.

This response doesn't make things clear at all.
My specific question is: Is it an option for the jury as the charges stand right now, or it is only an option if the defense files a motion to make it an option?

Lesser-included offenses depend on the charging document and how its worded. There are times that there will technically be lesser included offenses that are applicable but both sides agree that the jury shouldn't be instructed on them; its often a strategic decision for both sides. Including a lesser gives them an easier out to convict the defendant of something (even if its only something minor) if they can't agree on the main charge...but not including the lesser also increases the chance that they'll just throw up their hands and say not guilty. Usually each state supreme court produces model instructions that will have the usual lesser-included offenses that the jury can be instructed on but I can't find New Yorks for this charge at the moment.

If convicted on a misdemeanor charge, the judge will dismiss the case.

To clarify, this is conjecture. The judge has no obligation to dismiss a misdemeanor conviction.

If he doesn't dismiss it, the appeals court will.

You'll have to explain the logic on this one. If its a valid lesser included offense (particularly one where defense counsel is asking for the lesser-offense jury instruction) what possible reason would the judge or an appeals court have to overturn the jury's verdict?

[Dereich]

Lesser-included offenses depend on the charging document and how its worded. There are times that there will technically be lesser included offenses that are applicable but both sides agree that the jury shouldn't be instructed on them; its often a strategic decision for both sides. Including a lesser gives them an easier out to convict the defendant of something (even if its only something minor) if they can't agree on the main charge...but not including the lesser also increases the chance that they'll just throw up their hands and say not guilty. Usually each state supreme court produces model instructions that will have the usual lesser-included offenses that the jury can be instructed on but I can't find New Yorks for this charge at the moment.

OK, I know all this....but are the lesser included charges included in this case as of right now?

Why am I getting so many replies to my question that don't answer my question?

Its probably not decided yet! Jury instructions (including those on which lessers the jury will be charged with) aren't finalized until the charge conference. I don't have any experience with a case expected to last as long as this one, but in my experience the charge conference isn't usually conducted until towards the end of trial. There are plenty of instructions (IE instructing the jury on not holding the defendant's silence against them or instructions on disregarding video edits) that aren't relevant until the end.

[Dereich]

Prosecution has done a good job so far. Defense has done a poor job. Jurors seem like they’re paying attention.

Not good news for Trump.

How? Did defense do anything besides opening statement? ... We had about only 90 minutes of witness questioning. Calm yourself

You definitely can make that argument by the end of openings. The research is pretty consistent; between 80%-90% of jurors have made up their minds by the end of opening statements. The rest of the trial is a matter of not losing/empowering the jurors who are rooting for/against you. Its why jury selection and openings are ALWAYS called the most important parts of the trial by litigators. They're not as fun as crossing a party or closing arguments when you can go wild in what you're allowed to argue, but those parts only reinforce what is already built by opening.

[Dereich]

The research is pretty consistent; between 80%-90% of jurors have made up their minds by the end of opening statements.

The link you posted specifically says that statement is false:

In conclusion, the claim that 80% (or more) of jurors reach their decision after opening statements is false. This myth was miscited, unfortunately spread, and has persevered for decades. The real figure is likely closer to 30%.

Lol, whoops. My bad. I didn't go through that one very well. I'll have to find the actual research again rather than the first google result.

[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.

[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.

[Dereich]

Unfortunately yeah, there's too much risk he would just say, yeah those meetings never happened, Cohen and I did it all on their own, Trump knew nothing. He's a hostile witness who wouldn't work with the prosecution.

And even if the prosecution doesn't have Weisselberg locked into particular statements that'd help them prove their case against Trump, or documented evidence that Weisselberg couldn't hope to deny on cross-examination with any shred of credibility, the defense isn't entitled to what they'd really love out of this, the "missing witness" jury instruction to infer the prosecution didn't call him because his testimony would have been exculpatory, because Weisselberg wasn't solely for the prosecution to call; the defense could've too, & they didn't.

The defense doesn't have the obligation to present any case.
The prosecution has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not calling Weisselberg creates an opening for a reasonable doubt.

They could have offered him a deal and sealed the case. And they didn't.

Of course, this doesn't go into the jury instructions, but this will be in jurors' minds.

Brucejoel is right in so far as the defense is not allowed to make the argument that the prosecution should have called Weisselberg (or any other witness) or comment on what uncalled witnesses might have testified to when they had the power call them as well. Will the jury still think about it without the attorneys making the argument? Who knows. As I've said before, juries are forces of darkness who do not follow their instructions and instead come to their verdicts based on god-knows-what.