# Manhattan Prosecutors file criminal charges for Trump re Stormy Daniels case - ongoing discussion here (Guilty on all 34 counts, May 30, 2024) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [March 9, 2023, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953 "2023-03-09T22:53:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 100
**Author:** ![anny\_m](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@anny\_m](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anny_m)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1981 "2024-04-20T16:20:32Z")
Thanks. I thought that was the case, but was wondering if there were any repercussions to lying about whether or not you’ll testify. If the defendant states he will testify and the prosecution structures its case in part based on that promise, and then the defendant says, “Oops! Changed my mind!” the prosecution is just SOL, right? ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1982 "2024-04-20T16:23:53Z")
Why can’t they legitimately change their mind based on how things went? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1983 "2024-04-20T16:26:29Z")
I agree. A trial is a dynamic process. If defence considers that there are sufficient weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, after the prosecution evidence is all in, they may legitimately decide not to call any evidence, or not to call the accused. ---
**Author:** ![anny\_m](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@anny\_m](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anny_m)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1984 "2024-04-20T16:26:40Z")
Of course, they can. But then why state “I will testify” instead of “I will likely testify”? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1985 "2024-04-20T16:28:27Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > If the defendant agrees to testify but then invokes the Fifth Amendment declining to answer some (or all) questions, does the prosecution have the right to introduce evidence based on the question the defendant refused to answer? AIUI, if a defendant testifies, they sacrifice any fifth amendment protections with respect to any testimony given: the prosecution may ask an incriminating question in cross-examination, and if it is in bounds, the defendant may not invoke 5A to refuse to answer. This is a major reason defendants are rarely advised testify, because there is quite a lot of lattitude afforded to cross-examination. ---
**Author:** ![Love\_Rhombus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/love_rhombus/32/10694_2.png) [@Love\_Rhombus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Love_Rhombus)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1986 "2024-04-20T16:32:36Z")
Information about the jury consultant the Trump team has been using in this and the Carrol trial. > **[Trump's defense used a jury consultant to research and help them select jurors](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trumps-defense-used-jury-consultant-research-help-select-jurors-rcna148605)** > > A jury consultant hired by the former president's legal team watched potential jurors for signs of bias while researchers conducted social media searches to vet them. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1987 "2024-04-20T16:34:15Z")
Because he fully intends to testify at this moment. If I tell you “I will stop at the market on the way home”, I intend to do it. If there’s a train wreck that blocks the market before I can get there, I will end up not doing it. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1988 "2024-04-20T16:43:04Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > AIUI, if a defendant testifies, they sacrifice any fifth amendment protections with respect to any testimony given: the prosecution may ask an incriminating question in cross-examination, and if it is in bounds, the defendant may not invoke 5A to refuse to answer. This is a major reason defendants are rarely advised testify, because there is quite a lot of lattitude afforded to cross-examination. Thanks for the clarification, I was trying to wrap my head around how pleading the 5th would work. My understanding of the 5th is that a defendant would basically be saying “answering that question would make me look like I broke the law” but if Trump is already on trial for breaking that law, it would be very circular. I am sure Trump would love it though. But if he thinks telling a jury that he can’t answer questions because the answers will make him look guilty… well, that’s not the great defense he thinks it is. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1989 "2024-04-20T16:43:54Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > I’m not familiar with this type of hearing, but my thought is that > > (1) if he said that to the judge in support of his lawyers’ arguments that certain evidence should be excluded, and > > (2) the judge relies on that assertion as the basis to exclude evidence, and > > (3) he doesn’t testify, > > does that mean that the prosecution can then ask to introduce the evidence after all? No, my understanding of the Sandoval hearing is to determine _what_ evidence, if any, is admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility, _should he decide_ to testify. I heard a talking head on the television who explained that this is often used strategically by defense counsel to demonstrate to their client the risk of testifying. At the end of the hearing, they can say “if you get on the stand, _this_ is coming in.” It helps with the discussion about the merits of remaining silent. > [@griffin1977](#): > > Though will the fact Trump gave an unambiguous “yes I will testify” during the Sandoval hearing have any implications when they do eventually convince him to not testify? No. He might have had to express a willingness to testify to get to a Sandoval hearing (I’m not sure), but he absolutely can change his mind. He doesn’t have to decide until it’s the defense’s turn to present a case, after the State rests. > [@DWMarch](#): > > I was trying to wrap my head around how pleading the 5th would work. Basically, if you are a criminal defendant, the right is to testify or not. But if you _do_ testify, you’ve waived the right as to any particular question asked. This is different than other times when you might be _required_ to testify under oath (such as a witness pursuant to a subpoena, or as a litigant in a civil case). In those situations, you can invoke the 5th Amendment as to _specific_ questions that are asked. > [@anny\_m](#): > > If the defendant states he will testify and the prosecution structures its case in part based on that promise, and then the defendant says, “Oops! Changed my mind!” the prosecution is just SOL, right? The defendant _never_ has the burden of proof as to the elements of the crime. If the prosecution has to rely upon the testimony of the defendant, they don’t have a case. (But note that the statements of the defendant are usually _admissible_, so the government _will_ get to introduce what the defendant has said. If the defendant wants to explain or deny those statements, he can try to impeach the accuracy of that testimony. But he also retains the right to get on the stand and speak for himself. And sometimes a defendant _is_ their best witness for their defense). ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1990 "2024-04-20T16:47:14Z")
Thank you for the clarification. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1991 "2024-04-20T17:10:53Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Because he fully intends to testify at this moment. In the same way that he intends to make his tax returns public. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1992 "2024-04-20T17:17:26Z")
Eh, skimming some research (law firms love to post blogs about various legal issues), I’m pretty sure that donald _had_ to say he was going to testify in order to have the Sandoval hearing. The hearing is strategic, as the defendant can then _rely_ on the judge’s ruling when deciding to take the stand (unless he opened the door\* in his defense case). For many defendants, this is useful. I’m on trial for drugs; are you allowed to introduce the fact that I had a battery conviction 10 years ago? I’d want to know before I decide whether to testify. \*e.g., If the judge rules that a prior conviction is inadmissible, that doesn’t mean you can get on the stand and say that you’ve never been in trouble before. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1993 "2024-04-20T17:18:19Z")
> [@hajario](#): > > Because he fully intends to testify at this moment. I vehemently disagree. Trump has no intent about the future. He is motivated entirely by what he thinks is the most effective and useful thing to say right now. There is zero connection to what he might or might not say or do in the future. He will make that decision when that moment comes. Right now he believes he needs to be a confident defendant, so he says he will testify. That’s it. There’s nothing else to it. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1994 "2024-04-20T17:23:06Z")
Whatever. We can’t actually read his mind. You’re probably right but we don’t know. Legally it’s irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1995 "2024-04-20T17:26:28Z")
I’m just saying you can predict precisely nothing about tomorrow based on his words today. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1996 "2024-04-20T18:00:58Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > , I’m pretty sure that donald _had_ to say he was going to testify in order to have the Sandoval hearing. He had to say he was _considering_ testifying. Did he have to say yes I am going to testify? It’s not a huge deal, but my take is just exhibit 19531 of “Trump is the worst client ever” his lawyers would have preferred him to say the bare minimum is to necessitate the Sandoval hearing but instead he was quite explicit he _was_ going to testify. But I’m not a lawyer in NY or anywhere else. ---
**Author:** ![anny\_m](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/96bed5/32.png) [@anny\_m](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anny_m)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1997 "2024-04-20T18:31:24Z")
To me, it is kind of a big deal. Every time I start to have faith in our judicial system something like this happens. Apparently in some instances when it’s in the defendant’s best interest to willfully lie on the witness stand, he can do so without any repercussions. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1998 "2024-04-20T19:16:41Z")
> [@anny\_m](#): > > Apparently in some instances when it’s in the defendant’s best interest to willfully lie on the witness stand, he can do so without any repercussions. That didn’t happen here. Donald hasn’t testified. All the reporting I see is that he told _reporters_ that he’d testify. This coincided with a legal hearing about what (otherwise extraneous) evidence would be allowed to show that donald is not credible, should he choose to testify. Some digging tells me that this is something the DA does by putting the defendant on notice of what the DA would seek to use. This is called a Sandoval Notice, and is what triggers the hearing. So, no, Trump has never said in court whether he’d testify or not. As I expected, this decision is premature. > **[People's Sandoval Notice \[filed\]](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24554326-peoples-sandoval-notice-filed)** ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/1999 "2024-04-20T20:23:31Z")
> [@anny\_m](#): > > Apparently in some instances when it’s in the defendant’s best interest to willfully lie on the witness stand, he can do so without any repercussions. Though it’s 100% not in Trump’s best interests to be in this Sandoval hearing. This is entirely a problem of his own making due to his dysfunctional narcissism. His best interests would be served by saying “hell no, I’m no going anywhere near the witness stand” He’s not gaining anything by this (whether or not he actually intends to testify or is lying about it) even if there are no repercussions in the trial, its not some 5D chess move that will gain him an advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2024, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953/2000 "2024-04-20T22:01:49Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Basically, if you are a criminal defendant, the right is to testify or not. But if you _do_ testify, you’ve waived the right as to any particular question asked. > > This is different than other times when you might be _required_ to testify under oath (such as a witness pursuant to a subpoena, or as a litigant in a civil case). In those situations, you can invoke the 5th Amendment as to _specific_ questions that are asked. Sorry for my layman’s confusion, but I’m not sure of the distinction you seem to be drawing between questions that are “particular” versus “specific.” Once a defendant takes the stand, did all 5A rights disappear? Or are there still lines of questioning where he could legitimately invoke 5A protection? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953.md?page=99) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/manhattan-prosecutors-file-criminal-charges-for-trump-re-stormy-daniels-case-ongoing-discussion-here-guilty-on-all-34-counts-may-30-2024/980953.md?page=101)