I’m having a hard time finding an online cite for the “no printed jury instructions” thing. I’m wondering if something was misinterpreted or misunderstood somehow.
Both juries I was on did not have the instructions written. If we had a question we wrote the question(s) down and gave it to our person. He would take it to the judge, and then everyone went back to the courtroom and the question was answered by the judge.
Well of course, we did that, too. Not all questions a jury has are about the instructions. They can have lots of questions/requests.
And if they struggled with understanding a jury instruction, they could send out a note and ask the judge to clarify, of course.
But in California, we always sent in a hard copy of instructions that had been read to the jury. They were well used, too.
From cnn update.
The defense and prosecution finished debating jury instructions during the charge conference on Tuesday, discussing the language around intent, an alleged conspiracy and more.
Here are the key points:
Alleged conspiracy: The parties debated language about the jury’s requirement to find the prosecutors proved that Donald Trump participated in an alleged conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election. The prosecution argued that Trump’s meeting with former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker at Trump Tower in 2015 went toward Trump’s participation in the conspiracy, while the defense called the meeting a “series of pretty standard campaign activities that were not criminal.”
Remember: Trump was first indicted in March 2023 by the Manhattan district attorney on state charges related to a hush-money payment to an adult film star in 2016. Prosecutors allege Trump was a part of an illegal conspiracy to undermine the integrity of the 2016 election. Further, they allege he was part of an unlawful plan to suppress negative information, including the $130,000 payment. Trump has pleaded not guilty.
Intent: Originally, the defense proposed a second line about intent, which meant people must establish beyond a reasonable doubt two separate intents, the intent to defraud and the intent to commit or conceal the aid of another crime. Due to concerns with this section, Judge Juan Merchan opted to keep the standard, criminal jury instructions language around the issue of intent.
Here are some other topics discussed around jury instructions:
- Both sides debated instructions around tax crimes relating to Cohen testifying that former Trump Organization Chief Financial Officer Allen Weisselberg was “grossing up” the money Cohen was paid.
- The defense asked the judge to instruct the jury that hush money is not illegal. Merchan said he doesn’t think it’s necessary, as that came out in testimony.
- Merchan said he thought his limiting instructions on Cohen’s guilty plea, American Media Inc.'s non-prosecution agreement and others “were appropriate” and that he would give the same instruction he did during the trial.
- There was a debate around New York legal precedent on if retainer agreements are required between an attorney and a client. The judge said he would look into this and get back to them.
Asking for another deviation: Defense attorney Emil Bove requested another deviation from the standard criminal jury instructions language when he asked the judge to be as specific as possible when describing the statutes as they are applied in this case, noting there wasn’t much of a precedent.
“What you’re asking me to do is change the law and I’m not going to do that,” Merchan said.
On Thursday the instructions will be printed out. We will get to see them.
Depends on where you are. Some places don’t allow note taking.
I’ve seen that. In Washington (typically, some things vary by county) every juror gets a copy to read along while the judge reads from the bench. Only one verdict form goes to the jury room though.
It’s a very technical area of the law, and the subject of a lot of appeals. You can waive some issues if you object but don’t submit an alternative. Other issues just require objections. But if you don’t object, and on the right grounds, you’ve messed up the appeal. Most criminal cases don’t have complicated instructions. 95% of them will be “pattern instructions” in most jurisdictions. You have standard intro instructions, direct and circumstancial evidence, defination of reasonable doubt, etc. Every case is the same. Then you add the specific instruction that tracks the crime charged, laying out the elements needed to convict. We call that the “to convict” instruction. Most crimes are pretty standard and have standard instructions. Here are the elements of Robbery in the First Degree, here are the elements of Possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. This case, of course, is not completely standard.
The case I heard to verdict in California we not only had a hard copy of the jury instructions, we had a sheet with the various possible outcomes in boxes to be checked. It was a civil case.
Civil case verdict forms can be really complicated, so I’m not surprised if the parties stipulated to give you guys a road map. 
Good idea, frankly.
Out of curiosity, why not?
And yeah, having the judge stand by to answer questions instead of having the instructions written down sounds like a huge and pointless waste of time for an important person who already has more than enough demands on his time.
Now that the evidentiary portion of the trial is over, and the next time the jury is in court it will be for final instructions and deliberations, it may be sinking into even his reptilian brain the depth of shit he’s in.
I can believe he was expecting his crack defense team to blow so many holes in the prosecution’s case that even “so-called” Judge Merchan would be forced to bow before their brilliance, dismiss the charges and convict Joe Biden in absentia for … something. That not happening may have been a blow to his worldview.
It’s been the same in trials I’ve done in Colorado and Florida.
Agreed. I was surprised how much back and forth was going on in this case over the instructions. This will be the subject of an appeal, and the appellate court will either bless these decisions or overturn the conviction (if it gets up to the appeal, then that’s because Trump lost). I, personally, have faith that Merchan is going to get it right.
Well, in part it’s because some of the jury instructions depend on how the trial goes.
Did the defendant testify? There’s an instruction on that. Did he remain silent? A different instruction.
And suppose it’s a battery case, and the defendant wants to instruct the jury on self defense. Before they get to do that, they have to introduce evidence that the jury can find (if they believe it) to constitute self defense.
That’s largely why the lawyers today were referring to testimony at trial - the instructions are tailored to the evidence.
Very generally, the crimes (ie, the law) are dependent on what evidence comes out during the trial. You could start out with an alleged crime. Not put up any evidence of it/Judge strikes it, and therefore it wouldn’t make it to the jury charge. So then you’d have to edit/tell the jury to ignore it and it’d be more confusing than helpful.
Something like that. Don’t really like my answer but it’s the best I can get out right now.
Anyways, it’ll be ready for closing and the lawyers can go over it with the jury which can be helpful.
Edit: what Moriarty said.
Wouldn’t it be possible to have jury instruction in two phases, first, before the trial, instruction on the elements of the charged crime, and then, after the trial, instructions on all of those specifics that came up during?
There are standard instructions that are given to the jury at the beginning of the trial about listening to the testimony, but they are general (and usually tell the jury to keep an open mind until they hear all the evidence, along with stuff about note taking)
The lawyers, however, might reference the elements of the crime in their opening statement. So they can preview the expected law for the jury.
But in this case, there are clearly layers to the charge, as it concerns falsifying records to cover up another crime, which is going to include reference to other, uncharged conduct. With that complicated an indictment, I can see why the lawyers might not have tried to drill down on the law until the end of the case, when they have the judge’s rulings in hand.
So Trump bitched about one of the prosecutors tonight, Michael Colangelo, while leaving the courthouse, without mentioning him by name.
“I just watched something go on in there, and you have to look at the man that did all the talking,” Trump said after exiting the afternoon’s proceeding, in which his lawyers and prosecutors, including Colangelo, debated jury instructions.
"He came here for one reason, and where did he come from?” Trump continued. “He came from Washington, D.C., the White House and the DOJ. And he argued the case.”
Will this be enough to put him in the pokey for a few hours?
Do you remember the first time it ever occurred to you to tell a lie, and your subsequent realization that your parents could tell?
I don’t think Loser Donald ever had the latter revelation. He seems to think that all he has to do is say “Fake news, it never happened” and everyone is supposed to believe him, and anyone who doesn’t isn’t playing by the rules and is thus being “unfair” to him. So he told his lawyers to deny everything and in his mind that’s all it should take to secure a not guilty verdict, and the only reason it hasn’t is because Biden appointed a corrupt judge and attorneys specifically to “get Trump”.
I doubt it.
On the contrary, it confirms his worldview that he can’t trust anyone to deliver the goods and that everyone is against him. He is right and everyone else is incompetent.
Or evil and unfair. He uses a broad brush.
That is one of his very, very favorite words to use in describing how others treat him. And it’s hilarious, because his definition of “fair” appears to be “I get away with things that would land anyone else in prison.”
That’s exactly it. More specifically, “I’m entitled to get away with things that would land anyone else in prison.” The idea of being held accountable for anything comes from a world that is just inconceivable to this orange psychopath.