NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[Badger]

Question for our resident lawyers: with the understanding that juries are unpredictable, what's your sense of the trial so far?  Would you rather be the prosecution or the defense at this point?

My admittedly biased gut is saying it's gone quite well for the prosecution and the defense has floundered like most of Trump's legal teams in his multitude of cases. There's still a few big X factors for me though.

One is that I'm getting such wildly downright contradictory assessments of Cohen's testimony. Depending on how you hear it was either Just an absolute bloodletting for the prosecution which is not the way you want to end your case in Chief, or Cohen readily acknowledged in direct the vast majority of his misdeeds and false statements to the point where the defense really did not score many points. Still not sure why they would end their case with a witness who obviously carried so much baggage, though.

The second is that these aren't particularly straightforward criminal charges like robbery or murder, or even compared to most White Collar theft cases. I'm not adopting the viewpoint of several posters in this thread who've claimed the prosecution hasn't been able to prove any necessary Nexus between the money laundering and illegal activity such as election Finance fraud, but it's still not necessarily the most clear cut of cases. Juries can convict on complex charges and fact patterns every day, but it is somewhat more of a challenge for the prosecution.

Very interested in hearing whether or not judge merchan instructs the jury on lesser misdemeanor offenses. As stated previously, I'm not sure if New York law permits as Ohio's does for lesser included offenses to be instructed even over defense objection so long as there is a reasonable factual basis by which the jury could find the defendant guilty of such a lesser offense, or even if so whether there's some meaningful factual difference among the dozens of counts Trump faces which would permit at least some felony convictions even if the jury is given the option of a misdemeanor.

[Badger]

I completely buy the prosecution's factual case.

But the prosecution has done almost nothing to convince me that what Trump did constitutes a crime beyond a reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of the statutes and campaign finance regulations.

I understand that this is really not supposed to be something a lay jury is asked to decide.  But if I'm a juror and the law is as unclear as it seems to be in the case, and I've been given almost no information as to how this vagueness should be resolved, I'd have to feel it was my responsibility to acquit.

This is why I wish the prosecution had a least brought up adultery as a possible underlying crime to elevated the falsification of records to a felony.  Under this theory of the case, I think Trump is 100% guilty with no ambiguity in the law, and I would absolutely convict him.  But unfortunately the prosecution presented no evidence that Trump committed adultery in New York.

Two problems with that, one strategic and one big picture. The first is that a jury would be an extreme risk of calling BS on prosecuting someone for the crime of adultery in New York state in 2024. Jury nullification is a rarity, but it still exists, and if the prosecution wanted to create The Perfect Storm - no pun intended- for that to occur they would have tied this case to adultery charges. Would have substantially increase the chances of an acquittal IMO.

Secondly, for as much as The Usual Suspects have yammered on incessantly about how these are all political prosecutions, the one Nexus there is to public opinion and these charges is that the Manhattan DA's office would have become an National laughing stock, including potentially even in manhattan, for seriously trying to convict Trump a felony offenses related to supposedly illegal adultery. That is a PR and political leap they wisely avoided with a 30 ft Pole.

I suspect the jury instructions on the law would fill a lot of the state's case in on this point, buttressed by their closing argument. The fact that Trump attempted to present expert testimony that this was not in fact a violation of election Finance laws, and furthermore that said testimony was disallowed, indicates both that Trump's team is seriously concerned that prosecutions evidence on this point is compelling, and the exclusion of their so-called expert on that point was a serious body blow to that argument.

[brucejoel99]

It sounds like another significant ruling is the judge ruled it's up to the jury to decide if the if the crime being covered up by the fraud was illegal and the prosecution doesn't have to prove it was unlawful. Not sure I have this right.

Merchan reserved ruling on whether an election conspiracy requires that its unlawful means be criminal or can encompass civil violations too (although agreed that the statute could've said "criminal means" but doesn't) before ruling that the jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on what the exact unlawful means Trump falsified his business records to conceal were.

[Badger]

Trump is headed for aquittal here.
Even Senator Joe Manchin thinks NY Trail doesn't make sense
https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1792629616399544376

Imagine taking seriously almost anything Maserati Joe says, let alone his passing observations about a criminal trial where he is one of the few members of Congress without a law degree let alone any legal experience.

[Badger]

Why are Trump cultists celebrating that Merchan's behavior guarantees a Trump conviction will be overturned by an appeals court?
Was it really that unprecedented and out of line what he did with Costello?

Hell no. As pointed out this was just Alan dershowitz making a fool out of himself yet again. The real question is why didn't judge merchand keep Trump on at least as title leash as he did costello?

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't even care about the outcome anymore, so long as it isn't an acquittal. That would be a disaster. A hung jury is basically a wash, and a conviction will have to remain to be seen over whether it will have any impact on this teflon cretin.

[Badger]

I don't even care about the outcome anymore, so long as it isn't an acquittal. That would be a disaster. A hung jury is basically a wash, and a conviction will have to remain to be seen over whether it will have any impact on this teflon cretin.

I respectfully disagree. A hung jury, that is anything but an outright conviction, will be spun by Trump, Fox news, and the great right wing media/blogosphere as Trump being "innocent". Even if it's 11:00 to 1:00 guilty and the prosecution decides take another stab at it there's almost no way this case will be retried before the election to wear the American voters can see Clearly verified evidence of Trump's venial corruption. Not that it matters to 45 plus percent of them.

If memory serves, there's still I think a chance of the January 6th trial going forward before the election? If a hung jury erupts here, that may be our country's last chance to convince voters not to go down the Road of devolving from a functioning democracy to something like Victor orban's Hungary

[MillennialModerate]

I think a conviction in the other cases would be impactful. But this one? No

[soundchaser]

I don't think the gravity of the hypothetical phrase "convicted felon Donald Trump" is being appreciated here. It doesn't necessarily matter what these charges are, since the people most likely to be swayed by big, broad headlines aren't going to follow the nuance anyway. The ads write themselves, the debate would be a sh**tshow (moreso), and that's not to mention any possible sentencing.

It would be a big deal, and I'm tired of people saying it wouldn't even make a dent.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't think the gravity of the hypothetical phrase "convicted felon Donald Trump" is being appreciated here. It doesn't necessarily matter what these charges are, since the people most likely to be swayed by big, broad headlines aren't going to follow the nuance anyway. The ads write themselves, the debate would be a sh**tshow (moreso), and that's not to mention any possible sentencing.

It would be a big deal, and I'm tired of people saying it wouldn't even make a dent.

It definitely would give Biden and Democrats an opening to finally openly talk about it.

[emailking]

If memory serves, there's still I think a chance of the January 6th trial going forward before the election? If a hung jury erupts here, that may be our country's last chance to convince voters not to go down the Road of devolving from a functioning democracy to something like Victor orban's Hungary

If SCOTUS outright denies him and Chutkan gives them the promised 78 days but does not delay it any further because of the election then it could at least get started before the election. But based on the oral arguments it seems very possible/probable they're going to kick it back for clarification as to which of the indictments are within the scope of his official duties.

[brucejoel99]

I don't think the gravity of the hypothetical phrase "convicted felon Donald Trump" is being appreciated here. It doesn't necessarily matter what these charges are, since the people most likely to be swayed by big, broad headlines aren't going to follow the nuance anyway. The ads write themselves, the debate would be a sh**tshow (moreso), and that's not to mention any possible sentencing.

It would be a big deal, and I'm tired of people saying it wouldn't even make a dent.

It definitely would give Biden and Democrats an opening to finally openly talk about it.

"Convicted felon Donald Trump" may honestly risk losing him more votes than J6, to the extent that his base obviously will never falter, but swing voters may. Aside from Biden campaign ads being guaranteed to make a big deal out of "convicted felon Donald Trump," every news organization would get to call him "convicted felon Donald Trump" too. That Nikki Haley still consistently wins ~20% of the vote in the GOP presidential primaries despite dropping out months ago just goes to show that at least some conservatives are already beyond over his bullsh*t. Now imagine independents. It's not murder on Fifth Avenue, but "Guilty" may just be the black stain his campaign can't stop from swaying middle-ground voters to Biden.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't think the gravity of the hypothetical phrase "convicted felon Donald Trump" is being appreciated here. It doesn't necessarily matter what these charges are, since the people most likely to be swayed by big, broad headlines aren't going to follow the nuance anyway. The ads write themselves, the debate would be a sh**tshow (moreso), and that's not to mention any possible sentencing.

It would be a big deal, and I'm tired of people saying it wouldn't even make a dent.

It definitely would give Biden and Democrats an opening to finally openly talk about it.

"Convicted felon Donald Trump" may honestly risk losing him more votes than J6, to the extent that his base obviously will never falter, but swing voters may. Aside from Biden campaign ads being guaranteed to make a big deal out of "convicted felon Donald Trump," every news organization would get to call him "convicted felon Donald Trump" too. That Nikki Haley still consistently wins ~20% of the vote in the GOP presidential primaries despite dropping out months ago just goes to show that at least some conservatives are already beyond over his bullsh*t. Now imagine independents. It's not murder on Fifth Avenue, but "Guilty" may just be the black stain his campaign can't stop from swaying middle-ground voters to Biden.

Let's hope. There is no guarantee of that these days.

[mjba257]

What about a conviction on misdemeanors? What do you think the impact would be then?

[Ferguson97]

Trump very clearly broke the law, so his only hope is a MAGA juror holding out, resulting in a hung jury.

[SteveRogers]

What about a conviction on misdemeanors? What do you think the impact would be then?

Unless I missed something, it doesn’t sound like an instruction on the misdemeanor was discussed at the charge conference, was it?

[emailking]

I think Thursday is when we're getting a decision on whether misdemeanor only is a possibility. If convicted of misdemeanors but not felonies, I think the impact would be minimal because then you can't label him a convicted felon, and it might also play into the witch hunt narrative. This is total speculation, it's all uncharted territory.

[Obama24]

Around what date will we have a verdict?

[GeorgiaModerate]

Around what date will we have a verdict?

Probably late next week or early the following one.

[Meclazine for Israel]

"Convicted felon Donald Trump" may honestly risk losing him more votes than J6, to the extent that his base obviously will never falter, but swing voters may. Aside from Biden campaign ads being guaranteed to make a big deal out of "convicted felon Donald Trump," every news organization would get to call him "convicted felon Donald Trump" too. That Nikki Haley still consistently wins ~20% of the vote in the GOP presidential primaries despite dropping out months ago just goes to show that at least some conservatives are already beyond over his bullsh*t. Now imagine independents. It's not murder on Fifth Avenue, but "Guilty" may just be the black stain his campaign can't stop from swaying middle-ground voters to Biden.

Quoted for posterity.

[emailking]

I don't think Bruce is the type to delete if he turns out to be wrong about something FWIW.

Also, none of us knows what the impact of a conviction will be. We're all ****ing in the wind here.

[White Cloud]

I don't think that even a conviction will do much to change the race. It's not the gotcha card that people think it is to say that "Trump is a convicted felon", because people will still want to know what he was convicted of. Then you'll have to explain that Trump had an affair with someone and paid her to not talk about it. And people will shrug their shoulders, because we have a long history in this country of prominent politicians doing the same thing. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that it's a part of our politics.

There's also really bad optics with this case being tried in New York City by a Democrat judge right in the middle of the campaign. People see it as political persecution. And a conviction in a liberal enclave won't surprise anyone. Plus, you have almost the entire Republican establishment defending Trump in this trial. Politicians are coming to New York and stumping for Trump outside the courtroom every day. It would be different if people were abandoning him, but they are not.

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/frankrunyeon/status/1793261199703830721

Did [the] D[istrict] A[ttorney] establish B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt] that T[rump] "caused" 34 (or fewer) "false" entries to be made in the T[rump] Org[anization's] books with the intent to conceal an Election Law 17-152 conspiracy to promote his election by "unlawful means"? Let's break that down:

Was there an agreement between T[rump], Cohen & Weisselberg to promote T[rump]'s election by (1) paying Stormy $130G [conduct which constitutes a criminal campaign contribution [and] expenditure violation]; (2) having C[ohen] report the $130G "reimbursement" (depicted on Exhibit 35) as "income" on his N[ew] Y[ork] S[tate] tax return [conduct that constitutes a violation of N[ew] Y[ork] S[tate]'s Tax Law (which prohibits misrepresentations on a tax return)]; or (3) filing 34 (or fewer) false ("legal expenses"/"retainer") business records (11 checks signed by T[rump]; 11 invoices submitted by C[ohen] and attached to the checks; 12 entries in the general ledger) with intent to defraud [conduct which constitutes a violation of Penal Law 175.05]?

The jury need not unanimously agree that the "unlawful means" was agreed upon conduct that constituted a (1) F[ederal] E[lection] C[ampaign] A[ct] violation; (2) Tax Law violation; or (3) Penal Law 175.05 violation. Four jurors can find the DA established (1) B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt]; Four [can] find [the] DA established (2) B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt]; and Four [can] find [the] DA established (3) B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt]. If that's what happens (we will likely never know because special verdict forms won't be used), the DA has met his burden of establishing that "unlawful means" were agreed upon by the conspirators (T[rump], C[ohen] & W[eisselberg]) to promote T[rump]'s election.

The closest analogy to the alternative, non-unanimous, "unlawful means" analysis in this case is a burglary prosecution. To establish a burglary, the DA must establish B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt] that the defendant entered the home or building (as the case may be) with the intent to commit "a crime" therein. If supported by the evidence, there were two possible crimes (let's say theft and assault of an occupant), six jurors can find B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt] that the defendant intended on committing a theft inside and six jurors can find B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt] that the defendant intended on committing an assault inside. If that's what happened, the DA met his burden of establishing that the defendant entered with the intent to commit "a crime" inside. And the crime of burglary is established B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt].

The same analysis applies to the "unlawful means" requirement of the crime T[rump] intended on concealing--an Election Law 17-152 conspiracy to promote his election by "unlawful means." It would have been simpler if the DA only alleged one "unlawful means," such as (1) above [a FECA campaign contribution [and] expenditure violation by the $130G hush-money payment to Stormy]. But if he did so, he'd have to convince all 12 jurors B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt] that the agreed upon (by T[rump], C[ohen] & W[eisselberg]) conduct of paying Stormy $130G constituted a criminal FECA violation.

Suffice it to say, the DA is going to have to go through the elements of the Penal Law 175.10 felonies, one-by-one, explaining to the jury how each element has been established B[eyond] A R[easonable] D[oubt] by credible evidence: T[rump] "caused" knowingly "false" entries to be made in the T[rump] Org[anization]'s books; he did so with intent to defraud some person(s) or entity(ies); and that intent included an intent to conceal an Election Law 17-152 conspiracy to promote his election by at least one of three "unlawful means."

[brucejoel99]

I don't think that even a conviction will do much to change the race. It's not the gotcha card that people think it is to say that "Trump is a convicted felon", because people will still want to know what he was convicted of. Then you'll have to explain that Trump had an affair with someone and paid her to not talk about it. And people will shrug their shoulders, because we have a long history in this country of prominent politicians doing the same thing. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that it's a part of our politics.

There's also really bad optics with this case being tried in New York City by a Democrat judge right in the middle of the campaign. People see it as political persecution. And a conviction in a liberal enclave won't surprise anyone. Plus, you have almost the entire Republican establishment defending Trump in this trial. Politicians are coming to New York and stumping for Trump outside the courtroom every day. It would be different if people were abandoning him, but they are not.

71% of Americans think that Trump should be put in prison if he broke the law & is convicted, with 53% "strongly" agreeing with that (Reuters/Ipsos). 64% of registered voters think that the hush-money case is serious while only 34% don't (Reuters/Ipsos). 57% of Americans agree that "falsifying business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn star" to influence an election is a "serious crime" (Yahoo/YouGov). 55% of Americans say they won't vote for Trump if convicted of a felony, including 51% of Republicans (Reuters/Ipsos). Majorities of voters in 7 swing states say they're unwilling to vote for Trump if convicted of a crime (53%) or sentenced to prison time (55%) (Bloomberg News/Morning Consult). 50% of Americans think that Trump is guilty in the hush-money case (Politico/Ipsos).

[MillennialModerate]

Around what date will we have a verdict?

Probably late next week or early the following one.

Why so long?