Podcast Summary
Trump Indicted for Falsifying Business Records: Trump indicted for falsifying business records to hide payments to women during the 2016 election
Former President Donald J. Trump and others have been indicted by the grand jury of the county of New York for falsifying business records in the first degree. The indictment, which includes 34 counts, accuses Trump of making false entries in business records with the intent to defraud and conceal a scheme to pay hush money to women, including Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, who had allegedly had sexual encounters with Trump. The false records included invoices, entries in the general ledger, and false check stubs, and the scheme was carried out to conceal these payments, particularly during the 2016 presidential election when the access Hollywood tape was released. The trial is about the falsification of business records, and the 33 other counts besides the one read by Robert De Niro are similar, with different dates and types of business records falsified. The purpose of falsifying these records was to hide the payments made to these women to keep the information from the voters.
Media organization on trial for suppressing and disseminating false information: The ongoing trial against a media organization highlights the serious consequences of suppressing damaging information and disseminating false information about political opponents.
The ongoing trial against a media organization for conspiring to suppress and disseminate false information goes beyond just keeping negative information hidden. Yesterday's court proceedings revealed that the organization not only suppressed damaging information about a political candidate but also created and disseminated false information about their opponents. This is significant because the charges against the media organization align with one of the allegations against Donald Trump – engaging in fake news and suppressing evidence with the help of a non-fact based media outlet. The trial's relevance extends beyond the specific case as it sheds light on the broader issue of media manipulation and the potential consequences of such actions. The jury selection process and pretrial motions, including the admission of other crimes evidence, are also crucial aspects of the trial that are being closely examined.
Judge reaffirms rulings on evidence and orders defense to comply with discovery: Judge Marchand emphasized the importance of both parties following discovery rules and not using it as a tactical maneuver. He also made new rulings in favor of Trump on certain in limine motions.
During the ongoing trial of Donald Trump, Judge Marchand reaffirmed his previous rulings on the admission of evidence related to other crimes, but Trump's defense team attempted to revisit these rulings. The prosecution also renewed their motion for the defense to turn over discovery, which they had not done despite knowing they intended to use the evidence. Judge Marchand then ordered the defense to turn over the documents within 24 hours or risk having them precluded due to a violation of the rules. This is an important reminder that both parties are expected to comply with discovery rules and not use it as a tactical ploy. Additionally, Judge Marchand made some new rulings in favor of Donald Trump on certain in limine motions.
Judge's Rulings on Evidence in Trump Trial: Judge allows affair evidence, denies pregnancy context, restricts Access Hollywood tape, excludes sexual assault allegations, and sets contempt hearing for Trump.
During the ongoing trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan, Judge Michael A. Marshand made several rulings regarding the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence. The affair between Trump and Karen McDougal, which the DA considers as "other bad acts" evidence, will be allowed, but the fact that Melania Trump was pregnant at the time will not due to its potential prejudice. The transcript of the Access Hollywood tape can be introduced, but not the tape itself. The judge also kept out evidence of allegations of sexual assault and abuse against Trump from 2016, as well as information related to Stormy Daniels, due to their minimal relevance and potential for unfairness. These rulings are tentative and subject to change if either side introduces new arguments or evidence. Additionally, a contempt motion against Trump for alleged violations of the gag order with respect to witnesses will be heard a week later.
New York DA seeks sanctions against Trump for gag order violation: New York DA Alvin Bragg asked the court to impose sanctions on Donald Trump for violating a gag order in the Stormy Daniels case, including potential fines and jail time.
New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg has asked the court to impose sanctions on Donald Trump for contempt due to Trump's alleged violation of a gag order in the Stormy Daniels case. The sanctions include a fine of up to $1,000 per violation and a potential jail sentence of up to 30 days per violation. The state argues that Trump's statements about Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, made in social media posts, constitute clear violations of the order. The state also emphasizes that these are anticipated witnesses and that the order was constitutional. While the possibility of jail time is a concern, it's important to note that the road to jail is typically a gradual one, starting with less severe sanctions. The defense is expected to argue that the gag order is unconstitutional. The ultimate goal of the sanctions is to ensure a fair trial and prevent further escalation of the situation. However, given Trump's history of non-compliance with similar orders, it remains to be seen whether this will be effective in changing his behavior.
Jurors Self-Identify Impartiality in Trump Trial: In Trump's criminal trial, jurors were asked to self-identify if they couldn't be impartial instead of the usual method of being asked questions to identify biases.
During the jury selection process in Donald Trump's criminal trial, potential jurors were given an opportunity to self-identify if they believed they couldn't be fair and impartial. This is unusual as jurors are typically asked a series of questions to identify biases or reasons for cause that would prevent them from serving. The judge's instruction to the panel outlined the allegations against Trump, and potential jurors were asked to self-identify if they couldn't be impartial based on what they had heard so far. This process is designed to determine if any juror should be dismissed for cause, meaning it's clear or reasonably debatable that they couldn't be fair and impartial. This method of jury selection is unusual due to the high-profile nature of the case.
Judge's authority to dismiss biased or unable-to-be-impartial jurors during jury selection: Judges can dismiss potential jurors for cause due to biases or inability to be impartial. The Batson procedure allows challenges to strikes based on impermissible classifications.
During jury selection in a high-profile case, the judge has the authority to dismiss potential jurors for cause if they express strong biases or cannot be impartial. This is different from a peremptory challenge, where each side can dismiss a certain number of jurors without giving a reason. However, if a pattern of strikes based on impermissible classifications, such as race, emerges, the other side can challenge these strikes using the Batson procedure. The judge will then determine if the strikes were made in good faith. This process ensures the integrity of the judicial system and protects the rights of potential jurors to serve. It's important for the public to understand this process, even though the actual challenges and rulings typically happen quickly during jury selection.
Jury selection for Trump's trial continues with personal questions: The jury selection process for Donald Trump's trial in New York involves potential jurors answering personal questions in front of other jurors and the press to identify potential biases or connections.
The ongoing jury selection process for Donald Trump's trial in New York involves potential jurors answering a lengthy list of questions in front of other jurors and the press. These questions cover various aspects of their personal lives, including neighborhood, employment, and media consumption. The purpose of these questions is to identify potential biases or connections that could lead to challenges for cause or peremptory strikes. The process is designed to ensure a fair jury pool in a high-profile case, and it may take some time before the final group of potential jurors is determined. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a case unrelated to Trump down the street in Washington D.C.
Understanding the Legal Battle Over Obstructing Official Proceedings: The Supreme Court is deciding if 'otherwise' in a statute related to obstructing official proceedings includes violent assaults or only record alteration.
The ongoing legal battle in the US Supreme Court revolves around the interpretation of a statute related to obstructing official proceedings. This statute has two parts: one prohibits altering, destroying, or concealing records, and the other prohibits otherwise obstructing, influencing, or impeding official proceedings. A police officer involved in the Capitol riots, who is also charged with these crimes, was the initial focus of this legal dispute. The question at hand is whether "otherwise" in the statute refers only to altering records or if it includes other forms of obstruction, such as violent assaults on the Capitol that interrupted the certification of electoral votes. The implications of this decision could potentially impact the charges against former President Trump, who is also charged with obstructing an official proceeding. However, it's important to note that there are significant differences between the charges against Trump and those against the Capitol rioters, particularly regarding the fraudulent elector scheme. The Supreme Court is currently considering this issue, and the outcome could have far-reaching consequences for these cases.
Implications of Supreme Court Case for Capitol Rioters: The Fisher v. United States case could lead to resentencings or releases for some Capitol rioters if the Supreme Court interprets the statute more narrowly, but it won't directly affect ongoing Trump trial.
The outcome of a Supreme Court case, Fisher v. United States, could have significant implications for individuals who have already been convicted under the same statute, particularly those involved in the Capitol riots. The defense in this case argues that the statute, which was created in response to corporate fraud cases like Enron, should be interpreted more narrowly. If the Supreme Court agrees, some defendants may be resentenced or even released from prison. However, this decision would not necessarily impact the ongoing trial of Jack Smith or former President Trump. The Supreme Court has delayed that case, and the immunity argument will be heard on April 25th. The hosts, Mary and Ken, plan to discuss this and other updates in upcoming episodes. Listeners are encouraged to send in questions or leave voice mails. The podcast, "Prosecuting Donald Trump," is produced by Vicki Virgolina, Jameris Perez, and Kathryn Anderson, among others. Vote for the show in the Webby Awards before April 18th. New episodes will be released twice a week.