Podcast Summary
Effective Cross-Examination: A masterclass in effective cross-examination, Susan Hoffinger's questioning of Robert Costello revealed the importance of being concise, having powerful evidence, and not fearing 'bad answers'.
The cross-examination of Robert Costello during the Trump trial, led by Susan Hoffinger, was a masterclass in effective cross-examination. Costello's testimony, which was about his interactions with Michael Cohen, was perceived as explosive and impactful, particularly due to the use of powerful exhibits. However, some argue that Costello's testimony was only marginally relevant to the trial, as it primarily focused on Cohen's decision to represent himself and the efforts to keep Cohen in line. Despite this, the cross-examination became significant due to the revelation that Michael Cohen had previously lied to Costello, making the latter's testimony an exhibit to prove Cohen's dishonesty. Overall, the cross-examination demonstrated the importance of being concise, having powerful evidence, and not being afraid of "bad answers."
Trump's attempts to influence investigation: Emails and testimony suggest Trump tried to prevent Cohen from testifying and influenced investigation through lawyers Giuliani and Sekulow.
During Michael Cohen's testimony in May 2018, it was revealed that Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, lawyers for then-President Trump, were in communication with Cohen about his counsel and the desire for him to switch from McDermott, Will, and Emery to more aggressive representation. An email from Costello, a defense lawyer, to a partner was read in court, which showed an effort to get Cohen to follow instructions from Giuliani and the president without it appearing so. However, Cohen denied following these instructions. The email, along with other evidence, suggests that Trump was trying to prevent Cohen from testifying, and the prosecution needs to ensure the jury understands this as evidence in the case. Additionally, there were instances where Costello told Cohen that the investigation could be over in a week if he cooperated, but this was not the case, and the Mueller investigation was not over with respect to Russian collusion as stated in the email. Overall, the emails and testimony provide significant evidence of Trump's involvement and efforts to influence the investigation.
Lawyer Frustration, Pressure and Exhaustion: Emails from lawyer Bob Costello during the Michael Cohen trial reveal his frustration towards Cohen for unresponsiveness and contradict earlier claims of only serving his interests. The emails also highlight the intense pressure and exhaustion experienced by lawyers during trials, with Costello expressing his desire to avoid another trial after this one.
During the Michael Cohen trial in 2018, Bob Costello, a lawyer involved in the case, exchanged emails with his partner expressing frustration towards Michael Cohen for not providing necessary information and for being unresponsive during a critical time. These emails contradict Costello's earlier testimony that his only interest was in serving Michael Cohen's interests. The emails also highlight the intense pressure and exhaustion experienced by lawyers during trials, with Costello expressing his desire to avoid another trial after this one. Additionally, during the charging conference, both parties presented their arguments to the judge regarding the applicable law, but the written charges they submitted were not made public, making it difficult for the public to fully understand the arguments being made. For trial lawyers, the charging conference is an essential part of the process, and it's crucial to focus on securing favorable instructions from the judge while avoiding potential reversible errors on appeal.
Jury Instructions in False Business Records Cases: Under New York law, the jury doesn't need to unanimously agree on the specific crime intended in a burglary case, but they must in false business records cases regarding the underlying predicate crime the defendant intended to commit or conceal.
During a trial, the judge's jury instructions play a crucial role in determining what arguments can be made by both sides. These instructions impact how the parties can argue about elements of the crime, such as intent to defraud and unlawful means. The parties need to know the instructions in advance to effectively prepare their summations. While the jury charge and its specifics are important, the overall case for the prosecution is not likely to hinge on these disputed issues. The defense may argue for more, but the prosecution is prepared to prove their case regardless. One significant issue is whether the jury must unanimously agree on the underlying predicate crime that the defendant intended to commit or conceal by the false business records. Unlike some crimes, such as burglary, under New York law, the jury does not need to unanimously agree on the specific crime intended inside the house. However, in the context of false business records cases, this dispute can impact what the parties can argue.
Following legal procedures is crucial: Judge's firm stance on legal issues in Trump trial underscores the importance of following established legal procedures and the potential consequences of not doing so.
During the trial of the false business records case involving Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, the defense argued for unanimity in the jury regarding the predicate crime, but the judge refused, citing New York law. The defense also attempted to introduce an advice of counsel defense, which the judge had previously rejected. The judge emphasized that if the defense wanted to rely on advice of counsel, they would have to waive the attorney-client privilege and provide discovery. The judge's firm stance on these issues highlights the importance of following established legal procedures and the potential consequences of not doing so. Additionally, the defense's argument that Trump was an "extraordinary person" entitled to special consideration was met with skepticism, emphasizing the importance of the rule of law.
Summation Strategies: During summations, the prosecution and defense play crucial roles in shaping the jury's perception by presenting compelling arguments and evidence. The prosecution aims to present a clear timeline and totality of evidence, while the defense focuses on creating reasonable doubt by attacking witness credibility and highlighting potential distractions.
During summations in a trial, both the prosecution and defense play crucial roles in shaping the jury's perception. The prosecution aims to present a clear timeline of events and the totality of the evidence, while dealing with potential issues surrounding key witnesses like Michael Cohen. The defense, on the other hand, focuses on creating reasonable doubt by highlighting potential distractions and attacking the credibility of key witnesses. A skilled defense may even elevate the importance of a witness like Michael Cohen to make the jury more cautious about convicting a high-profile figure like a president. Ultimately, the goal is to influence the jury's decision-making process by presenting compelling arguments and evidence.
Understanding jury trials: Jurors must decide each count individually, and the complexity of the verdict sheet can lead to unexpected outcomes. Defense attorneys may try to sow doubt to influence jurors' decisions during deliberation.
The concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" in jury trials can be confusing, and defense attorneys often try to sow doubt to influence jurors' decisions. During the deliberation process, jurors may have differing opinions on the significance of potential doubts. For instance, in a trial discussed, jurors struggled with the idea of spoliation of evidence, but the judge ultimately denied the defense's request for an instruction on it. It is essential to note that a jury must decide each of the numerous counts in a trial individually, and the verdict for each count can result in acquittal, conviction, or a hung jury. The verdict sheet's complexity can lead to unexpected outcomes, making it crucial for all parties involved to fully understand the implications of each possible verdict.
Complexities of a High-Profile Criminal Trial: The trial process for a high-profile figure involves multiple opportunities for appeals, motions, and retrials, even after a conviction, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of facts and application of law.
The criminal trial process for a high-profile figure like Donald Trump is complex and lengthy, with multiple opportunities for appeals and motions even after a conviction. During the trial, there are critical moments like the judge's ruling on a motion for judgment of acquittal, which can significantly impact the outcome. A hung jury or a conviction can lead to retrials, appeals, or even a motion for a new trial. Despite the uncertainty and potential delays, the trial process is designed to ensure a fair and thorough examination of the facts and application of the law.