Podcast Summary
Jury deliberations communication: Judges allow jurors to communicate with them during deliberations to clarify questions, and effective communication and clear argumentation are crucial for addressing key pieces of evidence and persuading the jury.
During jury deliberations, judges allow jurors to communicate with them to get questions answered, and they have the power to decide whether to continue or resume deliberations at a later time. In the recent Manhattan trial of Donald Trump, closing arguments were lengthy, with the defense making inconsistent arguments to seed reasonable doubt and scatter their approach. The defense failed to effectively address key pieces of evidence, such as Michael Cohen's handwritten notes (exhibits 3536) and damaging testimonies from Hope Hicks and David Pecker. The Mar-a-Lago case also saw significant developments, with Trump's lies about the search warrant execution leading to responses from Jack Smith, Trump's lawyers, and Judge Cannon. Overall, the trial process highlights the importance of clear and effective argumentation in presenting a case to a jury.
Defense strategy: The defense's argument lacked a compelling explanation for the hush money payments and handling of the Access Hollywood tape, damaging their credibility.
During the trial, Todd Blanche's defense for Donald Trump focused on dismissing Michael Cohen's testimony and the authenticity of certain documents as lies. However, Blanche's argument lacked a compelling explanation as to why Cohen and Allen Weisselberg would have kept hush about the alleged payments, and the defense's handling of the Access Hollywood tape was perceived as insincere and damaging to their credibility. Blanche's main argument hinged on the idea that the payments were part of a retainer agreement and that Cohen was not providing fraudulent records. Despite this, the defense did not effectively explain the existence and significance of the $130,000 payment and the notes, leaving room for skepticism. Josh Stonglass effectively countered Blanche's argument by highlighting the inconsistencies and questioning the logic behind Trump's handling of the payments during his presidency.
Defense attorney's plea for jury not to convict: Defense attorneys cannot ask jurors to not convict or show favoritism during closing arguments, as it may result in a curative instruction from the judge.
During the closing arguments in the trial of Donald Trump's former attorney, Michael Cohen, Todd Blanche, Cohen's defense attorney, tried to create reasonable doubt for the jurors by emphasizing inconsistencies and questioning the credibility of key witnesses, particularly Michael Cohen. Blanche also reminded the jurors that they could not consider punishment when determining the facts of the case. However, he went too far by explicitly asking the jurors not to convict Cohen and send him to prison, which resulted in a curative instruction from the judge. In contrast, Josh Steinglass, the prosecutor, focused on the accuracy of the invoices and checks in question and the importance of the falsified records concealing an unlawful hush money payment to promote Trump's campaign. The jury ultimately found Cohen guilty on multiple counts.
Closing arguments order impact: Defense going first in some court systems can make jurors more open to their perspective before hearing the prosecution's rebuttal, potentially benefiting the defense in high-profile cases.
The order of closing arguments in certain court systems, where the defense goes first and the prosecution responds, can potentially benefit the defense by making jurors more open to their perspective before hearing the government's rebuttal. This was observed during the Michael Cohen trial, where Josh Steinglass' lengthy closing argument was seen as a strategic move to ensure that all potential defenses were thoroughly addressed, given the high-profile nature of the case and the expectations for a strong burden of proof. The discussion also touched upon the importance of understanding the unique arguments made by both sides and the reasons behind certain decisions or actions, such as Michael Cohen's handling of the Stormy Daniels payment.
Cohen's trial evidence: Cohen's attorney effectively used emails, text messages, and recordings to support his testimony during the trial, refuted defense's arguments, and emphasized Cohen's loyalty to Trump
That during the trial, Michael Cohen's attorney, Josh Steinglass, effectively presented corroborating evidence while delivering his closing arguments. Cohen used emails, text messages, and recordings to support his testimony, which was displayed on slides for the jury to reference. Steinglass also refuted the defense's extortion argument, emphasizing that extortion is not a defense for falsifying business records or election fraud. Additionally, Steinglass effectively countered the defense's claim that Cohen was a liar by pointing out that Trump had valued Cohen's loyalty and had chosen him for his dirty work. Despite a few mistakes made during the trial, Steinglass's persuasive delivery and use of evidence helped strengthen Cohen's testimony.
Jury instructions and communication: Jurors rely on the judge's instructions during deliberations, sending notes for clarification, and may receive an Allen charge to encourage a unanimous decision.
During a jury trial, the instructions given by the judge are a crucial part of the deliberation process. The jurors do not have access to these instructions in the jury room, so they must send notes to the judge with any questions they may have. The judge, in turn, will provide an answer in open court. This process ensures that the law is being applied correctly and consistently throughout the deliberation process. Additionally, if the jury reaches an impasse and cannot come to a verdict, they may receive an Allen charge, which encourages them to reconsider their positions and work towards a unanimous decision. Overall, the instructions and communication between the jury and the judge play a vital role in ensuring a fair and just trial outcome.
Jury verdict implications: Jury verdicts can lead to various outcomes, including acquittal, conviction, hung jury, or partial verdicts. Misinformation can spread when crucial words are omitted from official statements, potentially influencing public opinion and causing confusion.
Jury verdicts can result in various outcomes, including acquittal, conviction, hung jury, or partial verdicts. Each verdict type has its implications for retrials. Regarding the Allen charge, it's a last resort for judges to encourage hung juries to reach a consensus. If given prematurely, it may be considered coercive. In the context of the unsealed motion regarding Trump's search warrant, the omission of a crucial word from a policy statement on the use of force led to misinformation being spread. Trump and his supporters claimed that the government had authorized the use of deadly force against him, which was a blatant lie. Such falsehoods can influence public opinion and sow confusion. It's crucial to ensure accurate information is disseminated to prevent misunderstandings and potential harm.
DOJ and Trump's public statements: The DOJ filed a motion against Trump without consulting his team, which violated a local court rule and raised concerns about the impartiality of the judge in the case
During a discussion about a legal matter involving the Department of Justice and former President Trump, it was highlighted that the DOJ had filed a motion requesting the court to impose conditions on Trump's public statements due to potential danger to law enforcement. Trump's team was not consulted before the filing of the motion, which is against a local court rule. Trump's attorneys opposed the motion and requested a meeting to confer, but the government proceeded with the filing. Trump's team then asked for sanctions against the government attorneys for violating the court's orders and the local rule. This incident raises concerns about the impartiality of the judge in the case, as Trump's team views the judge's handling of the matter as unfair and disregard for proper procedures.
Legal proceedings delay: Judge Scriven's cautious approach to legal motions in Mar-a-Lago search case prioritizes thorough examination of facts, but potential delays and appeals raise concerns about length and complexity of proceedings
Judge Mary Scriven is taking a cautious approach in handling the legal motions regarding the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, allowing for adequate time for opposing counsel to evaluate and confer before making a final decision. This approach, while potentially delaying a ruling, is a responsible one that prioritizes the legal process and ensures a thorough examination of the facts. However, the ongoing procedural maneuvers and potential for appeals raise concerns about the length and complexity of the legal proceedings. The stakes are high, as the outcome of this case could have significant implications for former President Trump and the Department of Justice. Ultimately, the judicial process must run its course, and we can expect a decision from Judge Scriven in due time.