In thinking about how the evidence will be presented, it’s important to remember how the DA has described the crime. It’s 34 counts of falsifying business records.
Here’s a helpful checklist for the start of the trial.
Deleted unhelpful post. You’re welcome!
Given that it is Individual-ONE on trial, that should be fairly easy to convince a jury of. However,
There is a simple, effective and all but unassailabe defense for CFSG: he fucking stiffs everybody. He is notorious for not paying anybody. Everyone knows it. Yet, he gave money to Michael Cohen? Who is going to believe that?
Counter - he tends to pay those who were busy covering up for him. Such as Weisselberg - he just stiffs everyone who doesn’t have leverage on him. 
We can literally see the checks. For example
Here’s another
I’ve got CNN on right now (Saturday, April 13, 2:30 pm EDT), and they just had a promo for “special live coverage” of Monday’s trial, starting at 9:00 am EDT that day.
What form that coverage will take, they didn’t say. For all I know, it could be a reporter sitting in the courtroom texting events to an anchor in the studio. But it appears that there will be some kind of coverage on TV.
TBH, one of my biggest concerns about this trial is whether or not NYC has prepared adequately to deal with the … probably … tens of Trump supporters coming to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of MAGA.
I would think a water cannon – used to de-gild their pricey and stylish Trump Sneakers – would be de minimis.
But I have no specific expertise.
From what I understand they will be posting updates. Usually reporters are not allowed electronic devices in the court room, they write things and use runners.
Perhaps if they have a cctv over flow room, they could use devices there.
As noted in the NY Times gift link I provided, they will have an overflow room. I’m pretty sure devices are allowed there.
MSNBC’s practice was to have reporters dash outside at key points to give on-air updates.
Since the trial starts with jury selection, the first few days (weeks?) of coverage will consist of speculation about the potential jurors. They won’t get to dramatic speeches and witness testimony for a while.
Jury selection (called voir dire) usually begins with jurors filling out questionnaires about their basic demographics (such as their age, marital status, and occupation), followed by questions, first from the judge and then the lawyers.
When the lawyers do their questioning, they will also try to educate the jurors about the relevant legal principles at play, but they will not be able to get into the facts of the case.
So, for example, the prosecution may talk about what it takes to prove a fact (I.e. if you believe one person’s statement of fact, you can accept that fact as having been proven, even if nobody else confirms it), and the defense may talk about the burden of proof (I.e. the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. It’s the DA who needs to bring the evidence) or the standard of proof necessary for conviction (I.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, which is an even higher standard that what is required to take your kids away from you)
The goal of that education, of course, is to subtlety lay the foundation for the case to come. I’d imagine then that both sides, knowing that the reputation of people like Stormy Daniels (adult film actress), Michael Cohen (convicted felon), and David Pecker (head of the National Enquirer tabloid) are going to feature prominently, would spend a lot of time talking about witness credibility.
But they’ll also want to ask pertinent questions to try to identify people with a clear bias, especially in this case. I’m not entirely sure what you can say to “out” a person who has already made up their mind, but that’s going to certainly be the goal.
What’s going to be really amusing about this, though, is the fact that donald is going to have to sit through it, and it’s going to be tedious and also stressful. He’s going to squirm in his chair like a child, and I’m guessing that if you made a drinking game out of how many times the judge will have to admonish him, you may not survive to opening statements.
In addition to @Moriarty 's excellent summary, for those who are interested, the Judge’s prospective juror questionnaire (42 questions) for voir dire begins on page 11 of this 17pp PDF.
I can’t remember the exact number, but the number of voir dire questions in the OJ Simpson trial was big.
As to the Trump jury: I’m out.
There are other reasons that people will be dismissed. Last year at about this time I had a planned vacation that would have conflicted with the trial. They let me reschedule. People can have health issues, poor English skills, work related problems and many other things. That will all get sussed out in the first few days.
WSJ editorial today (sorry, no link) posits that the way the charges were structured may cause to prosecution to fall apart. Hope they are wrong…
Given that right-leaning editorial source, it would have been nice to have seen a quote or two.
It’s based on the need to show that falsifying business records was done in furtherance of another crime.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-trial-alvin-bragg-juan-merchan-stormy-daniels-dcc214a1
I don’t have a firm position in regards to this claim. I note it’s an unsigned editorial by the “editorial board”, and I confess cynicism towards any attempt to support donald.
But it does offer a possible look at the defense: it’s not illegal to enter into a non-disclosure agreement, which is all that donald did. The concealment was by Cohen, not donald.
Hoping that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is wrong actually requires a remarkably tiny measure of hope.
I’ll be extremely disappointed if they don’t trot out “This had nothing whatsoever to do with any election. I was just trying to protect my beloved, doting wife, Melania, from the opprobrium and ignominy of this terrible woman’s scurrilous and baseless accusations.”
Thanks for the cite, especially this:
So something that’s irrelevant still apparently seems to be worth bringing. Got it.