# 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:** 127
**Author:** ![Jihi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jihi/32/17768_2.png) [@Jihi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jihi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 12:25am 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-30-2024/980953/2521 "2024-04-27T00:25:00Z")
> [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](#): > > I mean, there’s precedent: The guy in the back on the left, looks like he’s about into burst into laughter. ---
**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 27, 2024, 12:28am 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-30-2024/980953/2522 "2024-04-27T00:28:14Z")
> [@Jihi](#): > > The guy in the back on the left, looks like he’s about into burst into laughter That’s Eric Trump. He always looks like that. ---
**Author:** ![Jihi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jihi/32/17768_2.png) [@Jihi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jihi)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 12:51am 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-30-2024/980953/2523 "2024-04-27T00:51:52Z")
Holy crap, I did not realize that was Eric Trump. I may have been too kind. ---
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 1:06am 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-30-2024/980953/2524 "2024-04-27T01:06:52Z")
FWIW when I saw that picture, my first thought was “eric’s laughing at him”. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 1:49am 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-30-2024/980953/2525 "2024-04-27T01:49:30Z")
It’s probably been mentioned before, but would someone please remind me about two points: If Trump is found guilty, does the judge set his sentence or the jury? What is the range of penalties for the crimes he’s charged with? ---
**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 27, 2024, 2:12am 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-30-2024/980953/2526 "2024-04-27T02:12:16Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > If Trump is found guilty, does the judge set his sentence or the jury? The judge decides sentencing. Since it’s a felony, there is usually a _presentence investigation_ before sentencing; then a sentencing hearing where both sides (along with family, and victims) are allowed to speak. > [@commasense](#): > > What is the range of penalties for the crimes he’s charged with? These are Class E felonies, punishable by a term of prison up to 4 years. Probation is an option, however. And while, arguably, convictions for each count could run consecutively, that is not usually the case absent some serious aggravating factors. Instead, he’d probably get a concurrent sentence for each count for which he’s found guilty. Then again, I think covering up campaign fraud that occurred on the eve of the election is the most aggravating thing to imagine. > **[Class E Felony - Criminal Laws NY](https://criminallawsny.com/class-e-felony/)** > > Class E Felony Penalties – New York 1.5 to 4 years New York State prison 1.2 to 3 years post-release supervision Up to 1 year jail if conditions met (see PL 60.01, 70.00) Intermittent imprisonment Split sentence including jail... Since we are getting ahead of ourselves, here’s another fun thought. Let’s say donald is convicted, but is only sentenced to probation. But then one of the judges in one of his _other_ pending cases, on the basis of _this_’conviction, revokes his pretrial bond. He can sit in jail awaiting trial in Georgia or DC, for example. ---
**Author:** ![commasense](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/commasense/32/3017_2.png) [@commasense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/commasense)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 2:54am 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-30-2024/980953/2527 "2024-04-27T02:54:09Z")
Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 3:45am 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-30-2024/980953/2528 "2024-04-27T03:45:12Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > But then one of the judges in one of his _other_ pending cases, on the basis of _this_’conviction, revokes his pretrial bond. He can sit in jail awaiting trial in Georgia or DC, for example. When that happened to one of my clients, I was able to successfully argue that the “new crime” was not committed while under court supervision. ---
**Author:** ![Smid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/838e76/32.png) [@Smid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smid)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 10:38am 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-30-2024/980953/2529 "2024-04-27T10:38:30Z")
> [@commasense](#): > > If Trump is found guilty, does the judge set his sentence or the jury? Don’t forget they have to set a hearing for the sentencing, then think about it after, then set another hearing about the sentencing… (repeat until November) ---
**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 27, 2024, 12:30pm 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-30-2024/980953/2530 "2024-04-27T12:30:44Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > > [@Moriarty](#): > > > > one of the judges in one of his _other_ pending cases, on the basis of _this_’conviction, revokes his pretrial bond. He can sit in jail awaiting trial in Georgia or DC, for example. > > When that happened to one of my clients, I was able to successfully argue that the “new crime” was not committed while under court supervision. Touché. But what if your client was found to be in contempt of court in the new case while under court supervision? Hmmm… ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 12:40pm 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-30-2024/980953/2531 "2024-04-27T12:40:19Z")
> [@Smid](#): > > set a hearing for the sentencing, …, then set another hearing … (repeat until November) And then file appeals, which will take another year or two. Trump is safe. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 12:51pm 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-30-2024/980953/2532 "2024-04-27T12:51:06Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > Trump is safe. Unless, of course, the Biden Crime Family™ “rigs” the election so that the Orange Menace loses in November. Now that’s something I really look forward to. ---
**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 27, 2024, 1:18pm 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-30-2024/980953/2533 "2024-04-27T13:18:04Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > then file appeals, which will take another year or two. > > Trump is safe. Felons can file their appeals while serving their sentence. Trump is fucked. ---
**Author:** ![Shoeless](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shoeless/32/7099_2.png) [@Shoeless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shoeless)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 1:22pm 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-30-2024/980953/2534 "2024-04-27T13:22:35Z")
> [@Railer13](#): > > Just dropped in to say that I certainly appreciate the up-to-the-minute updates via this thread. Keep up the good work! For anyone who may be interested, Josh Kovensky at Talking Points Memo (TPM) has been live-blogging from the overflow room for most of the week, and I assume will continue to do so as long as he can get in. I’ve been trying to follow him _and_ this thread while working during the day in order to keep up to date. Great coverage! ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 1:43pm 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-30-2024/980953/2535 "2024-04-27T13:43:43Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Regarding the line of discussion about how the escalation to felony charges relies on an assertion that the violations were committed in furtherance of another crime which has not been clearly articulated, and the argument that this creates a legally weak case — there is a rebuttal here: Another point to remember: The judge is going to instruct the jury about the law. The prosecution isn’t going to be laying out how the pieces connect (or at least, won’t be the only one doing so): The judge will, too. “Cohen has already been convicted for his crimes in this manner, namely contributing illegally to Trump’s campaign. If you believe that Trump falsified business records by mislabeling his payments to Cohen, and if you believe that Trump’s reason for doing so was, in part, to conceal the crimes that Cohen and others committed, then Trump is guilty of the charge.” Juries can and should approach all statements by the lawyers for either side with skepticism, but when the judge says it, that should carry more weight. > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > defence is trying to get pecker to say that mcdougal was a celebrity. pecker is saying no. “i wouldn’t say there was a value to her brand to a media company.” Isn’t it one of the fundamental principles of trying a case in court that you never ask a witness a question, unless you both know what the answer is, and know that the answer will be favorable to your side? The witness saying no to a question like that sure seems to indicate an incompetent defense team. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 1:57pm 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-30-2024/980953/2536 "2024-04-27T13:57:08Z")
[quote=“Chronos, post:2535, topic:980953, full:true”] > [@Cervaise](#): > > > [@rocking\_chair](#): > > > > defence is trying to get pecker to say that mcdougal was a celebrity. pecker is saying no. “i wouldn’t say there was a value to her brand to a media company.” > > Isn’t it one of the fundamental principles of trying a case in court that you never ask a witness a question, unless you both know what the answer is, and know that the answer will be favorable to your side? The witness saying no to a question like that sure seems to indicate an incompetent defense team. Well, the prosecution is still presenting their case, so she’s not a witness that was called by the defense team—so presumably the lawyer for the defense was not able to prep her. Instead, she is being questioned on cross-examination in which the defense attorney is playing defense, so to speak. 😉 ---
**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 27, 2024, 2:02pm 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-30-2024/980953/2537 "2024-04-27T14:02:16Z")
It’s a sound principle, but on cross-examination, your goal is to show weaknesses in the witness’s testimony. That may require asking risky questions. It’s a balancing act. ---
**Author:** ![Folly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folly/32/3219_2.png) [@Folly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folly)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 2:18pm 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-30-2024/980953/2538 "2024-04-27T14:18:23Z")
A good cross-examiner will slowly probe and feel their way in the direction they want it to go. If they can stop on a strong implication without actually asking the question they don’t know the answer to, they should do so. You always here about “one question too many” in things like moot court and trial advocacy. But my experience ends there so I can’t get too much further into questioning strategy. ---
**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 27, 2024, 2:40pm 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-30-2024/980953/2539 "2024-04-27T14:40:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The judge is going to instruct the jury about the law. So, for shits and giggles, I looked up the standard jury instructions for this offense. > [@](#): > > FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS > > IN THE FIRST DEGREE > > Penal Law § 175.10 > > (Committed on or after November 1, 1986) > > The (specify) count is Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. > > Under our law, a person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when, with intent to defraud that includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof, that person: > > _Select appropriate alternative_: > > makes or causes a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or > > alters, erases, obliterates, deletes, removes or destroys a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or > > omits to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which he or she knows to be imposed upon him or her by law or by the nature of his or her position; or > > prevents the making of a true entry or causes the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise. > > The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning: > > ENTERPRISE means any entity of one or more persons, corporate or otherwise, public or private, engaged in business, commercial, professional, industrial, eleemosynary, social, political or governmental activity. > > BUSINESS RECORD means any writing or article, including computer data or a computer program, kept or maintained by an enterprise for the purpose of evidencing or reflecting its condition or activity. > > INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so. > > In order for you to find the defendant guilty of this crime, the People are required to prove, from all of the evidence in the case, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the following two elements: > > 1.​That on or about (date) , in the county of (county) , > > the defendant, (defendant’s name), > > _Select appropriate alternative_: > > made or caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise; or > > altered, erased, obliterated, deleted, removed or destroyed a true entry in the business records of an enterprise; or > > omitted to make a true entry in the business records of an enterprise in violation of a duty to do so which the defendant knew to be imposed upon him/her by law or by the nature of his/her position; > > or prevented the making of a true entry or caused the omission thereof in the business records of an enterprise; and, > > 2.​**That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.[Moriarty: This is the sentence that distinguishes this from the second degree misdemeanor charge]** > > [Note: If the affirmative defense does not apply, conclude as follows: > > If you find the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of those elements, you must find the defendant guilty of this crime. > > If you find the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of this crime. > > [NOTE: If the affirmative defense does apply, continue as follows: > > If you find that the People have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt either one or both of those elements, you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. > > If you find that the People have proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements, you must consider an affirmative defense the defendant has raised. Remember, if you have already found the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you will not consider the affirmative defense. > > Under our law, it is an affirmative defense to this charge of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree that the defendant, at the time he/she engaged in the conduct constituting the offense, was a clerk, bookkeeper or other employee who, without personal benefit, merely executed the orders of his/her employer or of a superior officer or employee generally authorized to direct his/her activities. > > Under our law, the defendant has the burden of proving an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. > > In determining whether the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, you may consider evidence introduced by the People or by the defendant. > > A preponderance of the evidence means the greater part of the believable and reliable evidence, not in terms of the number of witnesses or the length of time taken to present the evidence, but in terms of its quality and the weight and convincing effect it has.​ > > For the affirmative defense to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, the evidence that supports the affirmative defense must be of such convincing quality as to outweigh any evidence to the contrary. > > If you find that the defendant has not proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then, based upon your initial determination that the People had proven beyond a reasonable doubt both of the elements of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, you must find the defendant guilty of that crime. > > If you find that the defendant has proven the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence, then you must find the defendant not guilty of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree. [https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.docx](https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.docx) Now, that affirmative defense that is mentioned (he was just a bookkeeper following orders) is _wholly_ inapplicable. More importantly, I’d think, is the fact that this law doesn’t provide insight into how to determine what “other crime” was being concealed. I’m guessing that Cohen will testify that he was convicted of election fraud and went to prison. He may even testify that donald was Individual-1 in his indictment. I’d imagine that the defense would object if the DA asked Cohen if the only reason that donald wasn’t also indicted was because he was president (if so, that might be one of those _intentionally objectionable_ questions that @velomont had asked about earlier). But that inference may be all the DA needs to prove that second element of the crime. Then again, just to underscore the point, the DA will almost certainly include reference to New York Election Law 17-52 > [@](#): > > Any two or more persons who conspire to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means and which conspiracy is acted upon by one or more of the parties thereto, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. > **[Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election, N.Y. Elec. Law §...](https://casetext.com/statute/consolidated-laws-of-new-york/chapter-election/article-17-protecting-the-elective-franchise/title-1-violations-of-the-elective-franchise/section-17-152-conspiracy-to-promote-or-prevent-election)** > > Read Section 17-152 - Conspiracy to promote or prevent election, N.Y. Elec. Law § 17-152, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database Admittedly, it reads circular. But it just confirms that, _if Cohen went to prison for his activities_, and _if Cohen was working with donald when conducting these activities_, then donald was conspiring to commit a crime. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2024, 3:00pm 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-30-2024/980953/2540 "2024-04-27T15:00:49Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > I’d imagine that the defense would object if the DA asked Cohen if the only reason that donald wasn’t also indicted was because he was president (if so, that might be one of those _intentionally objectionable_ questions that @velomont had asked about earlier). Hell, _I_ would probably object to that question, and I’m not even a lawyer. It’s asking the witness to speculate on the decision-making process of the prosecution. OTOH, given the general fecklessness of the America-hating fuckstick’s legal team that we’ve seen, there’s every reason to suppose that it wouldn’t occur to them to object. [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=126) [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=128)