Yeah, here in Illinois, it’s prosecution first, then defense, then prosecution rebuttal. So while the initial order is different, prosecution still gets the last word. (And gets to speak twice, at that.)
Wait, or is that the same as it is now? I lost track.
With the election conspiracy, I’ve always wondered why we didn’t steal the first one, where Trump won, if we were so wily.
I have to work for a few hours so I’ll be following along here. Thanks rc for doing the heavy lifting for us.
I’m just wondering how many Rocky Horror "Antici’
.
.
.
.
“Pation” memes I’m going to see today.
Thanks to RC as well!
Since there’s a lot of charges, it could take a while no matter what the outcome. My pick is, well, not a great one from what I expect. Even if it’s guilty all around, we’ll have to hear all about how unfair it is to “me, me, me, and you (plural), and me…” 
i’m more of a carly simon anticipation.
found it!
steinglass portrayed the phone call as cohen. i put paragraph breaks for pauses, stage directions and qualifiers in parenthesis.
call:
hey keith. how’s it going? it seems like this prankster might be a 14 year old kid. if i text you the number, can you call and talk to his family?
see if you can let them know how serious this is. it’s not a joke.
yeah.
alright.
thanks, pal.
hey is the boss near you?
can you pass him the phone for a minute?
(i will wait a couple of seconds)
hey boss, i know you’re busy, but i just wanted to let you know that other thing is moving forward with my friend keith (davidson) and the other party that we discussed. it’s back on track. i’m going to try one last time to get out friend david to pay, but if it’s not , it’s going to be on us to take care of .
aha.
yeah,
alright,
good luck in tampa.
bye
(49 seconds)
from here:
Rachel Maddow reenacts key debunking of Trump defense argument (youtube.com)
per cnn:
Former President Donald Trump departed Trump Tower moments ago ahead of jury instructions and deliberations in the historic criminal hush money trial in New York.
After about an hour of customary jury instructions to be delivered by the judge, the panel of 12 New Yorkers will have the case.
Trump and the attorneys are expected to remain in the courthouse while the jury deliberates in case the panel sends a note that needs to be addressed. They have a war room of sorts and are expected to be in there, rather than sitting in the courtroom.
After closing arguments Tuesday in his Manhattan criminal trial, former President Donald Trump posted on social media to repeat his misleading complaint that Judge Juan Merchan has prevented him from employing a certain defense.
Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social: “THE GREATEST CASE I’VE EVER SEEN FOR RELIANCE ON COUNSEL, AND JUDGE MERCHAN WILL NOT, FOR WHATEVER REASON, LET ME USE THAT AS A DEFENSE IN THIS RIGGED TRIAL. ANOTHER TERM, ADVICE OF COUNSEL DEFENSE!”
Facts First: Trump’s claim remains misleading. He didn’t mention, again, that the reason Merchan will not allow Trump’s legal team to invoke “advice of counsel” during the trial is that, when Trump was asked before the trial whether he would be using an “advice of counsel” defense, his lawyers told Merchan he would not.
An “advice of counsel” defense typically requires the defendant to waive attorney-client privilege. Trump’s lawyers told Merchan before the trial that instead of a “formal” defense of “advice of counsel,” Trump wanted to use a different defense in which he would not waive attorney-client privilege but would still “elicit evidence concerning the presence, involvement and advice of lawyers in relevant events giving rise to the charges in the Indictment.”
Merchan rejected this proposal. He wrote in March: “To allow said defense in this matter would effectively permit Defendant to invoke the very defense he has declared he will not rely upon, without the concomitant obligations that come with it. The result would undoubtedly be to confuse and mislead the jury. This Court can not endorse such a tactic.” Therefore, Merchan ruled, Trump could not invoke or even suggest a “presence of counsel” defense in the trial.
Last week, during courtroom discussions about Merchan’s instructions to the jury, Merchan rejected an attempt by Trump’s defense to invoke the "involvement of counsel.” Merchan notedhe had already made his stance on the proposal clear.
Merchan said: “This is an argument that you’ve been advancing for many, many, many, months. This is something you’ve been trying to get through to the jury for many, many, many months. It’s denied, it’s not going to happen, please don’t raise it again.”
rc: there seem to be more trump supporters today.
Trump complained on Truth Social that he wasn’t allowed to use the presence of counsel defence. As was to be expected, Trump and his sycophants are going on and on about how unfair this is and how any reasonable jury would acquit which is a clear indiciation to me that they’re scared and expect to lose.
That’s nothing compared to the ceaseless crowing we’ll hear if he’s found not guilty. I shudder at the thought. It’ll go on for months.
The same if he’s found not guilty.
I much prefer the former.
If he gets a hung jury, what are the odds he crows about how (a) he was not found guilty? Which, he’ll of course add, means (b) he was found not guilty, amirite?
per cnn:
Former President Donald Trump is in the Manhattan courtroom ahead of jury deliberations in his historic criminal hush money trial.
Donald Trump Jr. is seated next to Alina Habba in the first row behind Trump.
rc:
once the judge begins the jury charge no one can enter or leave the room.
trump did not speak at the corral this morning. very unusual for him.
after the instructions things will go very dark. the commentators will go half frenzy filling the time.
the judge will start with the indictments then move onto the charging.
the judge is on the bench.
let’s get the jury, please.
now we begin.
They (and we) expected him to lose the 2016 election, and look how that turned out.
My optimism is extremely guarded this morning.
per cnn:
“Members, of the jury, I will now instruct you on the law,” Merchan says.
While I’m optimistic Trump will be convicted, it’s certainly not a sure thing as I don’t know what the jury is going to decide. But for now I will just be happy seeing the Trump-O-Sphere in a panic. But then I was also the kind of kid who enjoyed kicking ant hills and watching them swarm.
per cnn:
He says the jurors will not receive copies of the jury instructions, but they may request that Merchan read them back to them either in whole or in part.
Judge Juan Merchan reminds jurors they must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes.
“As a juror, you are asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community. I know you would not want to make that decision based on such stereotypes or attitudes,” he tells them.
“You must set aide any personal opinions you have in favor or against the defendant.”
As Judge Juan Merchan begin reading the jury instructions, he tells the jurors that they are responsible for judging the case on the facts.
“It is not my responsibility to judge the evidence here,” Merchan says. “It is yours. You are the judges of the facts and you are responsible for deciding whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.”
“In fact, nothing I have said in the course of this trial was meant to suggest I have an opinion about this case,” Merchan said.
“If you have formed an impression I do have an opinion, you must put it out of your mind at this time.”
Judge Juan Merchan tells jurors they “may not speculate about matters related to sentence or punishment.” He tells the jury that is up to the judge.
Donald Trump is sitting back as Judge Juan Merchan reads his instructions to the jury, mostly looking forward, though he turned his head toward the judge at one point.
The jury’s eyes are locked on Judge Juan Merchan as he is facing them and reading the instruction.
rc: oh dear, alina habba’s phone went off. a stern look from the judge. seriously! no words.
One thing that I fear, in addition to the one possible MAGA jurist, is a super Spock-like jurist whose bar for solid evidence is higher than anyone else’s and will almost guarantee reasonable doubt in his/her mind.
Turns out that this is the case. I’m curious as to Merchan’s rationale? Could it be that Merchan doesn’t want the jury leaning hard on “a piece of paper”, but instead want the jury to “free-form” their deliberations a bit? Think more “creatively” within certain bounds? “Brainstorm” more freely?
per cnn:
Judge Juan Merchan reminds the jurors that he gave them limiting instructions at several points, which he says was provided for them to hear on a limited purpose.
He’s now walking through the limiting instructions he gave, such as American Media Inc.'s non-prosecution agreement being limited to assess David Pecker’s credibility and not evidence of the defendant’s guilt or innocence.
Merchan is repeating some of the limiting instructions he has given throughout the trial. He tells the jury that the non-prosecution agreement and settlement with the Federal Election Commission with AMI was “to assist you, the jury, in assessing Pecker’s credibility and help provide content for some of the surrounding events.” He says they can use it “only” for that purpose.
“Neither the non-prosecution agreement or the conciliation agreement is evidence of the defendant’s guilt and you may not consider them in determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charged crimes,” Merchan says.
Another limiting instruction was given surrounding Michael Cohen’s guilty plea to campaign finance violations, which Merchan says can be used to assess Cohen’s credibility and give context to the events that followed, but not in determining the defendant’s guilt.
“We now turn to the fundamental principles of our law that apply to all criminal trials,” Judge Juan Merchan says.
Judge Juan Merchan tells the jury that they can’t hold it against Trump for not testifying.
“The defendant is not required to prove that he is not guilty. In fact, the defendant is not required to prove or disprove anything,” he says.
“If people satisfy their burden of proof you must find the defendant guilty,” Merchan adds.
One of the lawyer commentators on MSNBC addressed this this morning. He explained that in New York, the parties must agree that written copies be provided to the jury – and the defense never agrees to it.
One of those quirks of a particular venue. It makes no sense to me, but that’s the explanation.
i believe it is by jurisdiction. in phila. we did not have the charging/jury instructions written down with us in the jury room.
we just had the form you fill out. that walked you through and is what we used to deliberate.
it listed the charges and had guilty or not guilty box.