Podcast Summary
Judge's instructions to jury outline what counts as evidence: During a trial, the judge's opening instructions guide the jury on what constitutes evidence, which includes testimony from witnesses and admitted documents.
During a trial, the judge's opening instructions to the jury are crucial as they outline what the jury should expect during the trial, including what counts as evidence. These instructions can last up to 30 minutes and cover important concepts such as the difference between what attorneys say during opening and closing statements and what counts as actual evidence. In the ongoing trial of Donald Trump, the jury was instructed that only testimony from witnesses and admitted documents are considered evidence. The instructions also explained the process of offering documents into evidence and marking them with exhibit stickers. The trial, which started on April 23rd, includes allegations of fraudulent business records. Additionally, on Thursday, April 27th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on presidential immunity related to the case.
Burden of Proof in Criminal Trials: The gov't must prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Jurors assess credibility of evidence, not personal biases. Objections are valid concerns, and jury is instructed to disregard objected-evidence. Note-taking encouraged, court reporter records every word. Gov't presents opening statement first, defense last during closing arguments.
That during a criminal trial, the burden of proof lies with the government to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This instruction is given to the jury by the judge, who explains that a reasonable doubt is an honest doubt based on the nature and quality of the evidence, not an imaginary doubt. Jurors are expected to be fair and impartial, putting aside biases and stereotypes when assessing the credibility of witnesses or evidence. Objections made during the trial indicate a well-founded concern, and the jury is instructed to disregard the objected-to evidence or statement. Note-taking is encouraged during the trial, but the court reporter is also recording every word spoken. The government goes first during the opening statements, with the defense following, and the order reverses during closing arguments. The judge emphasizes the importance of this instruction throughout the trial.
Hard evidence presented in the trial includes tape recordings and phone records: Tape recordings and phone records serve as crucial pieces of evidence in the trial, providing corroboration and context for key witness testimony
During a trial, while note-taking is allowed, the official record comes from the transcripts. The tape recording of Michael Cohen and Donald Trump discussing the payment to Karen McDougal and the telephone records showing calls between Trump and Cohen before the creation of a shell company to make the payment are examples of hard evidence presented by the prosecution. The tape recording and telephone records are significant because they provide corroboration and help establish the truthfulness of the testimony given by Michael Cohen, who is a key figure in the case and has been labeled a liar by Trump's attorneys. These pieces of evidence strengthen the prosecution's argument and provide important context to the scheme being presented in the trial.
Prosecution builds strong case against Michael Cohen and Donald Trump: The prosecution is using emails, text messages, phone records, and witness testimonies to build a strong case against Michael Cohen and Donald Trump, focusing on reimbursements for Stormy Daniels payment and false business records as part of a cover-up.
Key takeaway from the ongoing trial is that the prosecution is building a strong case against Michael Cohen and Donald Trump through various forms of evidence, including emails, text messages, phone records, and witness testimonies. The prosecution has obtained records of phone calls between Trump, Cohen, and specific numbers, which will be used to establish timelines and provide context to the case. The key part of the case involves the reimbursements to Cohen for the payment to Stormy Daniels, which led to false business records as part of a cover-up. The prosecution intends to use contemporaneous notes from Allen Weiselberg, the CFO of the Trump Organization, as evidence against both Trump and Cohen. These notes will be admitted as coconspirator statements, which allow hearsay evidence to be introduced against a member of the conspiracy. Overall, the prosecution is meticulously piecing together the case with various forms of evidence, and the trial is expected to provide further insight into the allegations of election fraud, reimbursements, and false business records.
The Trump indictment includes a conspiracy to suppress damaging information: The Trump indictment alleges a conspiracy involving 'catch and kill' schemes, false business records, and payments for favorable and negative articles to influence public opinion.
While the indictment against Donald Trump does not explicitly list a conspiracy charge, the underlying scheme described in the case, known as "catch and kill," is indeed a conspiracy. The DA's opening statement highlighted this conspiracy, which involved paying for favorable articles about Trump and negative articles about his opponents, as well as buying the rights to suppress damaging information. The false business records charged in the indictment are felonies due to the intent to engage in this conspiracy, making it an essential part of the case.
Jury Instructions on Conspiracy in Trump's Trial: The jury in Trump's trial will focus on intentional concealment of a crime through fraudulent records, without requiring proof of completed crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
During the trial of Donald Trump's case, the jury will be instructed on the concept of conspiracy as part of New York law, even though there is no specific charge of conspiracy in the indictment. The jury will be required to find that Trump intentionally concealed another crime through fraudulent business records to make it a felony, and they do not need to prove that the other crime was completed beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense attorney for Trump, in his opening statement, correctly attacked Michael Cohen's credibility and distanced Trump from the creation of false business records. He also reminded the jury of Trump's presumption of innocence. Surprisingly, the attorney argued that the $420,000 payment to Michael Cohen was not a reimbursement for a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels. The attorney also hinted that some witnesses' memories might be questioned, potentially including that of Jeffrey Packer. Overall, the attorney's opening statement was a mix of expected and surprising arguments.
Defense surprises with statements during closing arguments in Capitol riots trial: The defense overstepped boundaries during closing arguments in the Capitol riots trial, leading to several objections from the government, including an objection to the accusation of extortion against Stormy Daniels and an attempt to bring up attorney-client privilege.
During the defense closing arguments in the January 6th Capitol riots trial, the defense made surprising statements, including expressing shock over Michael Cohen's past criminal actions and expressing the belief that influencing elections is a part of democracy. However, the defense went too far during the closing, leading to several objections from the government, including an objection to the accusation of extortion against Stormy Daniels, which was sustained as she has never been charged with extortion. Another objection was made when the defense tried to bring up attorney-client privilege during the closing, despite it being excluded pretrial. The defense's tactics during the closing arguments were seen as going beyond acceptable bounds.
Building trust with judges during pretrial is essential: Establishing a trusting relationship with judges during pretrial is crucial for attorneys to ensure their statements are believed. Failure to do so can lead to questions about credibility.
Developing a trusting relationship with the judge during the pretrial phase is crucial for attorneys to ensure the court believes their statements. This was highlighted during the gag order hearing in the ongoing case, where Todd Blanch, representing a difficult client, failed to establish such a relationship, leading the judge to question his credibility. Another topic on the radar is the controversy surrounding the $175 million bond Donald Trump posted to delay payment of a judgment in the New York attorney general's civil fraud case. The attorney general raised concerns about the adequacy of the collateral, which was reportedly under Trump's control, and the court ultimately ruled that it must be exclusively controlled by the bond company to prevent Trump from dissipating the assets. This unnecessary litigation is a reminder of the extensive time and resources required when dealing with complex cases involving Donald Trump.
Supreme Court to Hear Trump's Immunity Case: The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Trump's immunity from criminal prosecution related to January 6th. Trump's team argues for immunity, but lower courts have ruled against it. Critics question if this applies only when favorable. Debate exists on impeachment's role in criminal charges.
This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether former President Trump has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution related to the January 6th case. Trump's team argues that his actions were official acts and he should be immune. However, the lower courts have ruled against this, and Trump's team is being asked to decide the case expeditiously. Critics question if this position applies only if the outcome is in Trump's favor. Additionally, there's a debate over whether a successful impeachment is required before bringing criminal charges. The former president's team argued against criminal prosecution during his impeachment trial, but now they're making a contrary argument. This raises questions about forfeiting claims and consistency in legal arguments.
Supreme Court to Discuss Applying Senate Trial Arguments in Criminal Cases: During the upcoming Supreme Court argument, the application of arguments made during a Senate trial in a criminal court case is expected to be discussed, despite the government not making this argument.
During the upcoming Supreme Court argument regarding the case against former President Donald Trump, the question of whether arguments made during a Senate trial can be applied in a criminal court case will likely be a topic of discussion. The government has not made this argument, but it is expected that timing and hypotheticals similar to those raised during the DC Circuit argument will be brought up. The hosts also shared some exciting news, having won two Webby Awards for their podcast, "Prosecuting Donald Trump," which they attributed to their dedicated team behind the scenes.