Podcast Summary
Understanding Stormy Daniels' testimony requires being in the courtroom: Being present in court provides access to nonverbal cues, tone of voice, and the overall atmosphere, enhancing understanding of a witness's credibility.
The trial in Manhattan, particularly the testimony of Stormy Daniels, is more complex and nuanced than what is conveyed through transcripts alone. Being present in the courtroom allows for a better understanding of a witness's credibility, as it provides access to nonverbal cues, tone of voice, and the overall atmosphere of the courtroom. Stormy Daniels' performance in the witness stand was reportedly different on Tuesday compared to Wednesday, and the long wait between direct and cross-examination could have affected her demeanor. The lack of visual or audio recordings of the trial limits the public's ability to fully grasp the proceedings.
Mueller investigation began with Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels: The Mueller investigation started with a payment to Stormy Daniels, leading to a hush money agreement discovery and eventual expansion, despite initial reluctance due to its salacious nature. The trial of Michael Cohen has seen intense cross-examination of Stormy Daniels, while other key witnesses receive less scrutiny.
That the Mueller investigation began in summer 2017 with a payment made by Michael Cohen to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels. This payment was initially discovered in a bank report, and when investigators looked into it, they found it was related to a hush money agreement. The discovery of this information led to the investigation's expansion, despite the team's initial reluctance due to its salacious nature. The investigation ultimately split the Michael Cohen case into two parts, with the Russian-related pieces being handled by the US attorney's office. During the ongoing trial of Michael Cohen, there has been intense cross-examination of Stormy Daniels, which is unusual given the political and legal context. While Daniels' testimony is relevant to the state's case, her credibility is not the primary concern. Instead, more damaging witnesses like David Pecker and Hope Hicks have received less scrutiny during the trial. The dichotomy between the intense cross-examination of Daniels and the lack of it for Pecker and Hicks is an intriguing aspect of the trial. It's important to note that this is a fraudulent business records case, and the truth or falsehood of Daniels' story is not a concern. Instead, the investigation focuses on the hush money payments and their potential violation of campaign finance laws.
Stormy Daniels' credibility and the hush money payments are crucial in the trial: The credibility of Stormy Daniels and her account of the affair with Trump impacted the trial as it related to the intent and motive behind the hush money payments. False business records could be at issue if the payments were not legitimate.
The credibility of Stormy Daniels and her account of the affair with Donald Trump is relevant in the trial as it adds to the proof of Trump's intent and motive to make the hush money payment. The payments made to Daniels and the efforts to suppress her story could be considered fraudulent business records if they were false. While the doorman story, which was proven to be false, was not necessary for the prosecution to prove, it is still technically relevant due to its connection to the catch and kill operation. The defense attempted to challenge Daniels' credibility by pointing out inconsistencies in her testimony and suggesting that she was making up details. However, the jury ultimately had to decide on the credibility of the witnesses, including Daniels, in order to determine the truth of the case.
Defense counsel's cross-examination tactics: During trials, defense counsel's tactics can be perceived differently. Challenging a witness's credibility with prior inconsistent statements requires careful handling to avoid misunderstandings.
During a courtroom trial, defense counsel's cross-examination tactics can be perceived differently by various audiences. In this specific case, the defense counsel's approach to questioning a witness about inconsistencies in her statements was seen as unfair and playing a game by some, while others saw it as an effective way to challenge the witness's credibility. The use of prior inconsistent statements requires careful handling, as it needs to be directly contrary and have no explanation other than a change in story. Additionally, the media's editing of interviews can create misunderstandings and lead to unfair portrayals. Ultimately, it's essential for defense counsel to be aware of how their tactics may be perceived by different audiences and to be prepared to address any potential inconsistencies effectively.
Stormy Daniels challenges prejudice and humanizes herself as a witness: Stormy Daniels clarified consensual encounter with Trump and contradicted defense's mistrial argument, humanizing herself as a thoughtful and intelligent witness. Less sensational witnesses held more significance for the case.
Stormy Daniels' testimony during the trial was a powerful moment that challenged the prejudice against her and humanized her as a thoughtful and intelligent witness. She clarified that her encounter with Donald Trump was consensual and that he did not force her, contradicting the defense's argument for a mistrial. The judge's unexpected anger during the mistrial motion hearing added to the dramatic moment. Despite the media attention Stormy Daniels receives, it was the less sensational witnesses from the previous day that held more significance for the case.
Every minute counts in a courtroom, especially during jury trials.: Mistrials can be declared due to prejudicial errors or legal defects, and the trial judge's decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Every minute counts in a courtroom, especially during jury trials. Wasted time is considered a disservice to the jury and can be almost abusive. Mistrials can be declared when there is a prejudicial error or legal defect in the proceedings, which deprives the defendant of a fair trial. The standard for reviewing a mistrial decision is for abuse of discretion, and the trial judge is in a better position to assess the impact of testimony than an appellate court. During the Stormy Daniels trial, Todd Blanche argued for a mistrial due to Daniels' testimony being more prejudicial than probative and presenting a completely new story, which allegedly deprived Trump of a fair trial. The context of Daniels' testimony regarding condoms was argued to be relevant to the conversations before the encounter. Defense lawyers have a job to operate on different planes and make arguments to protect their clients.
Judge's Decision on Evidence in Trump Trial: Lawyers must object to unwanted evidence and appeal potential issues if needed, while ensuring their opening statements align with presented evidence.
During a trial, lawyers must consider both how to use potential new evidence against the opposing side and how to create appeal issues if there's a conviction. However, they must also ensure they object to any evidence they don't want admitted, as the judge in the Trump trial did when Stormy Daniels' testimony was brought up despite the defense's previous objections. The judge's decision to allow the testimony, despite the defense's opening statements denying any encounter, was based on the defense's own words and the relevance to proving the defendant's intent and motive. The judge's denial of a mistrial also emphasized the importance of objecting to unwanted evidence in a timely manner. Additionally, the judge's comments raised potential concerns for an ineffective assistance of counsel argument if the defense team is perceived to have handled the case poorly.
Judge's decision on mistrial during Trump trial: Reasonable minds differ on judge's denial of mistrial during Trump trial. Trump might have had a motive to suppress salacious details, but jury could convict based on non-graphic testimony. Testimony from publishers and authors corroborated business practices, while some employees were implicated in cover-ups. Trump maintained innocence.
During the Trump trial, the judge's decision to deny a mistrial despite some salacious details being discussed was a matter of discretion. Reasonable minds can differ on this issue, but the more sensational the details, the more a public figure like Trump might have had a motive to suppress them. However, the jury's ability to convict based on non-graphic testimony was questioned. Additionally, testimony from book publishers and their authors corroborated details about Trump's business practices, including his meticulousness and vindictiveness. Despite some employees, like Alan Weiselberg, being implicated in potential cover-ups, Trump maintained that he wasn't directly involved. Overall, the trial continued to shed light on Trump's business dealings and personal behavior.
Judge Delays Mar-a-Lago Trial: The Mar-a-Lago trial date has been vacated and is unlikely to take place before the election due to pending motions and SEPA issues.
The trial date for the Mar-a-Lago case has been vacated and a new schedule for motions has been set, pushing the trial date significantly further into the future. The judge felt it was necessary to fully consider all pending pretrial motions and SEPA issues before setting a new trial date. It's now unlikely that the trial will take place before the election. Additionally, the judge has not yet ruled on the defense's request for a delay in filing their SEPA section 5 and notice of expert testimony. The government cannot currently appeal the judge's rulings unless they involve specific laws such as the Classified Information Procedures Act.
Challenges in removing judges from cases: High standards prevent frequent bias-based removals, lengthy appeals process may not halt ongoing proceedings, and some cases continue without resolution
Removing a judge from a case due to perceived bias is a challenging process with high standards, as explained in the discussion about the Mar-a-Lago and Georgia cases. The law aims to prevent frequent attempts to remove judges based on disliked decisions. The appeals process for disputed rulings, such as the disqualification of prosecutors or recusal of judges, can be lengthy and may not halt ongoing proceedings. The Mar-a-Lago case will only be "dead" if Donald Trump becomes president, while the Georgia case continues without a trial date set.
Bannon Loses Appeal, Cohen May Testify: Bannon, a key Trump ally, lost his appeal to avoid prison time. Cohen, another crucial witness, may soon testify, potentially providing new details in the ongoing Trump legal proceedings.
Steve Bannon, a key figure in the ongoing legal proceedings against former President Donald Trump, has lost his appeal in the DC Circuit Court and is expected to surrender to serve his four-month prison sentence soon. Meanwhile, Michael Cohen, another critical witness in the case, may testify next week. The trial continues to unveil new information, with Cohen's testimony potentially providing significant details and corroboration. Despite some disagreements, Mary and I will bring you twice-weekly updates to keep you informed as the story unfolds. If you have questions, feel free to send us a voice mail at 917-342-2934 or an email to prosecutingtrumpquestions@nbcuni.com. Happy Mother's Day to all!