And Merchan told the defense they had a responsiblity to object and failed to do so. Part of me wonders if it was just an error on the defense’s part or did they hope by not objecting they could get a mistrial.
I’m pretty certain it was the latter. But, again, the question is whether or not the motion for a mistrial itself preserved the issue, making it subject to appeal. That’s not clear, at least to me.
As Costello would say, “Jeeze!” 
The issue that’s preserved is the denial of the mistrial motion. The mistrial motion was based on the Daniels’ testimony, so they are obviously related. I suppose they can argue that objecting at the time wouldn’t have helped, because the information was so unfairly prejudicial, nothing could have been done to cure it, other than a mistrial. The motion for a mistrial was made soon thereafter. I suppose they can raise it on appeal, but it’s a high bar. Appellate courts really prefer contemporaneous objections, so the trial judge can fix things at the time and we don’t have to argue on appeal what could have happened.
Thanks, that’s helpful. If they had objected contemporaneously, Merchan sustained the objection, and they then asked for a mistrial, does that materially improve the defense’s chances on appeal? Or is it a distinction without a difference?
Another question: If an appellate court believes the absence of objections was deliberate, an attempt to permit highly prejudicial testimony to pollute the proceedings, would that ever be a factor in their ruling? IOW, “Nope, we’re not rewarding you for something that was within your power to nip in the bud”?
They would be in a slightly better position if they had objected, and the objection was sustained. However, the judge would have given a curative instruction, which juries are presumed to follow. It has to be something pretty inflammatory to justify a mistrial on the grounds the jury could not put it aside when told to. (like a comment on the defendant refusing to testify)
I am picturing Trump at the base of a dam enclosing an over-filled reservoir. Above his head a rather large rock has just popped out and clattered to the ground at his feet.
I just used that imagery as a text prompt in AI. Apropos of nothing.
Is it true that Blanche changed parties to become a Republican and bought a house in Florida just before agreeing to represent Trump?
Politico article that outlines likely arguments that Trump’s lawyers will advance on appeal.
Makes the point that the appellate division has some authority to review facts in issue at the trial, apparently broader than some US appellate courts have.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/02/trump-conviction-appeal-juror-00161110
An excellent analysis by Legal Eagle (well Liz Dye really) as always.
For some reason I could not post a YouTube Link without a quote…
After watching that video, I have a much better understanding of the felony nature of Trump’s actions that I did not have from following the trial.
Good analysis of the sentencing as well.
For people who want to watch the video embedded without going to another site:
What intrigues me is that with 34 charges, even if the judge only gave him 6 months per charge, it’s still 17 freaking years.
Surely it’s common in these sorts of cases (broadly speaking) to have the sentences run concurrently rather than consecutively.
Yes, if he’s sentenced to any prison time, sentences running concurrently rather than consecutively is the consensus among the legal experts.
ETA: ninja’d by more than 20 minutes!
But has that really been established? As I understood it (IANAL) the jury unanimously agreed that the business records were falsified, and that the intent was to commit some other crime such as tax fraud or campaign law violation. But they didn’t have to unanimously agree on what the other crime was. The 34 felony verdicts don’t really specify what the enhancing crime was, or how the jury may have been split.
I think it’s at least possible that the jury never really discussed what the other crime was.
AIUI the Jury Instructions made it clear they did not have to agree on the nature of the other crime. So there was really no need to spend time on it, other than to assure that each juror believed the hush-up was related to another crime.
How did you get it to work? It kept giving me an error that I could not embed media.