Looks like they’re ending a little early today.
Witness and jury are done for the day. The judge has called the lawyers to the bench.
Cross has finished. I would reckon they will start with redirect tomorrow.
Oop, no redirect! New witness tomorrow. Logical stopping point for today.
The handwritten note for the reimbursement amount are exhibits 35 and 36.
The bench thing was to discuss witnesses and the prosecution believes they will be done roughly 2 weeks from tomorrow. (Snort, two weeks, snert)
I’ve consistently felt that – despite his innumerable flaws – Cohen would likely be a very compelling witness whose testimony would be corroborated by both other witnesses and documentary evidence.
I think the Prosecution was very wise to essentially back up everything Cohen is likely going to say before he says it.
Cohen’s a bit of a loose cannon. If the jury reads the proverbial book before they see the proverbial movie, I think they’ll have a whole lot more factual detail that Cohen can basically corroborate.
I think the other direction (ie, Cohen first, corroborating evidence second) would have been a much riskier strategy.
Prosecution thinks that they need two more weeks.
The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. The defense just needs to meet reasonable doubt. So unless the prosecution convinces the jury that “sparing his wife’s feelings” is unreasonable, they need to vote not guilty.
I think the prosecution is doing a good job of showing that criminal intent is the only reasonable purpose. But juries are unpredictable.
It’s important to keep in mind that having a “dual purpose” in Trump’s motivation makes him just as guilty.
He can violate the law by committing election fraud and simultaneously have concerns about concealing an affair from his wife. He’s still in violation of the election fraud law, as one motivation does not preclude the other.
The jury will be so instructed.
So, two weeks. That translates to eight court days. By my estimate, that means that the prosecution is about halfway through.
This is an awesome way of putting it.
Plus, as the jury instructions quoted by Procrustus say:
However, it is important for you to remember that the lawyers’ remarks, statements, and arguments are not evidence. You should disregard any remark, statement, or argument that is not supported by the evidence or the law as I have explained it to you.
Defence counsel need to have some evidence to support the argument that he was concerned with sparing his wife’s feelings. Maybe they will be able to introduce something.
Any idea what kind of evidence might support that? I’m scratching my head trying to think of something that might.
Maybe the flunky to whom Trump said something like, “Take care of this willya, I don’t want Melania to know.”
Any other guesses?
Just now on CNN: Trump thought the prosecution would be done today. Why would he think that?
True. State of mind and motive are tricky. I think the prosecution is doing a good job of building up a pattern of events that support the inference that at least part of his motivation was tied to the election.
For something as personal as his feelings towards his wife, defence may need himself to testify, which they probably don’t want to do. There may be a hearsay issue there, depending on how it works in NY evidence. In our system, incriminating statements made to a 3rd party can be admitted (eg to Cohen), but not exculpatory statements (eg to a flunky). Is that how it works in NY?
Dunno. IANAUSL.
I hope so. Based on the cross of McConney, it seems like the defense might be angling for “yes, Trump wanted to pay off Daniels. And yes, someone made false entries for those payments. But it wasn’t Trump who falsified the records.”
The jury could be absolutely convinced that Trump committed election fraud, and still find him not guilty. Trump is on trial for falsifying accounting entries only. The election fraud is a necessary part of a felony conviction, but there’s no risk to Trump without proving that he caused the false entries.
McConney was a step removed from that. I think the biggest risk to the case now is if Weissenburg cannot or does not confirm that the entries were made under Trump’s direction.
I’m trying to parse this and failing. The prosecution doesn’t have to convince the jury of anything regarding Melania.
If there is an affirmative defense (a “yeah, but” argument), it’s on the defense to prove it up.
I do not think they will be so instructed.
It is strange, but I don’t think the jury is going to be given instructions on the underlying (federal) law. They won’t be asked to find that donald violated federal election laws, in fact.
Yes, they will need to agree that he did so, but I don’t think that they’ll be given instructions on that law. It’s not New York State law, and so it outside the scope of this trial.
Does that create confusion? Is it a concern that the jury may get hung up on this when deliberating? I’d say yes to both.
(My emphasis)
This is distinct from
(More of my emphasis).
Being in charge is going to be key to establishing Donald’s authority over the record keeping. That’s why the fact that he was still a signatory even when in the White House, they had to FedEx checks for his signature between New York and Washington, and he’d decline to sign stuff he didn’t approve of was so important today.
(But, undoubtedly, the defense is shaping up as “donald was busy being president when these repayments were made. Other people handled this stuff, and he was just signing off”)
I certainly defer to your experience as a lawyer in these matters. It’s an odd confluence of legal questions. We’ll see soon enough!
Well, it’s not like I have experience with federal election crimes, or New York records laws. But I don’t see how a New York court instructs on the predicate federal offense (and unfortunately this creates a clear appellate issue; did the jury apply the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the conviction if they just agreed that there was an underlying crime without clear instruction?)
As you said, we shall see.
Isn’t Weissenburg in jail specifically for perjury (among other things)? The prosecution has some way to prove it happened, and aren’t just relying on a known liar (again), right?
There was testimony that Trump asked that newpapers not be delivered to the White House residence when some part of the scandal broke, allegedly to spare Melania’s feelings.
I heard a commentator somewhere say that argument was bogus because Melania never read newspapers. I suppose that’s why jurors are instructed not to watch any news coverage of the trial.
Question?
As I mentioned upthread:
“Nor is there any requirement that a defendant intend to conceal the commission of his own crime; instead, ‘a person can commit First Degree Falsifying Business Records by falsifying records with the intent to cover up a crime committed by somebody else.’””
Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to “18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally --” basically, falsifying business records.
We’ve talked upthread about the predicate crimes that Bragg could invoke that raise the misdemeanor to a felony, but … who thinks Cohen’s crime could be identified as the predicate crime, considering it’s a bit circular … a bit recursive.
In other words, could Trump’s felony be falsifying business records in an effort to cover up Cohen’s falsifying of business records IF … the Prosecution can convince the jury that Cohen did what he did both at the behest of Trump and in an effort to sway the impending election??
Or do they have to bypass Cohen’s crime entirely and make the felony case with a totally separate predicate crime that’s far more ‘detached from’ the stink of Michael Cohen?
Yes.
Perjury is rarely prosecuted but rarely doesn’t mean never.
Note that he’s only in jail for perjury, but you may be thinking of his tax fraud conviction, which he already served time for (3 months). His current incarceration is his second in two years.
I don’t see how that gets him off the charge of falsifying business records to cover up the payment. No matter why he did so.