Trump Trials Watch I

[nsacpi]

Discussion by some experienced lawyers:

David French: Let’s start with a big-picture question. I have less trial experience than either of you, but this deep into a trial, I always had a sense of the momentum of the case, of who is winning and who is losing. Who is more pleased with the course of the trial so far — the prosecution or the defense?

Rebecca Roiphe: In my view, the prosecution is happier about how things are going than the defense. They have established the backbone of the case, which is the false records, and they have provided a great deal of circumstantial evidence tying Donald Trump to those records and establishing his intent.

Ken White: When you ask who is more pleased with the course of the trial, remember that Trump is usually pursuing a public relations and political strategy at the expense of good courtroom strategy. In that sense, I suspect Team Trump is happy that he’s getting lots of airtime to push his narrative that he’s a victim of the elites and that the trial doesn’t seem to have had much of an impact on his polling numbers.

If you ask me as a trial lawyer, I agree with Rebecca that the D.A. is doing a solid job proving the elements of its case and telling the story in a way likely to grab the jury. So far, they are hitting all the necessary points.

French: Let’s end with some lightning round questions. First, since the trial has started, in your view has the chance of conviction gone up or down?

Roiphe: Up.

White: Up significantly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/o...smid=url-share

bumping up what some experienced trial lawyers have said, with bolding added

maybe those observers are wrong and y'all are right

we shall see

[Garmel]

bumping up what some experienced trial lawyers have said, with bolding added

maybe those observers are wrong and y'all are right

we shall see

They have zero evidence that Trump falsified these records. They're full of ****.

I wonder what they say now after Cohen was obliterated on the stand.

As I said I bet these clowns thought the Colorado ballot case was legit.

[nsacpi]

They're full of ****.

One man's ****, another man's solid case.

[nsacpi]

Over the past four weeks, Manhattan prosecutors, attempting to prove that Trump knowingly orchestrated a coverup, have called a parade of witnesses to show he was a micromanager deeply involved in the minutiae of his campaign and company. But Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer, was the only witness who has testified to having firsthand knowledge of Trump’s directing the hush-money payment and its coverup.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/trum...d=hp_lead_pos1

I think this is an interesting point. The jury might conclude there is room to doubt that Trump had any involvement in the scheme to buy Daniels' silence. We'll see. Otoh there is the interesting and unusual detail that he personally signed the checks to Cohen, a departure from usual business practices.

[Garmel]

One man's ****, another man's solid case.

Well, where are they getting this evidence that Trump doctored the records himself? It's not there.

The accountant said that he saw a payment to Cohen and believed it to be a legal expense. He made no mention that Trump forced him to change anything.

[nsacpi]

Colangelo asked Hicks on the stand about whether Trump communicated directly with Cohen at the time about the Daniels story. Hicks said she knew of only one instance.

Hicks: I believe it was ... the morning after Michael had given a statement to the New York Times, saying that he had, in fact, made this payment without Mr. Trump’s knowledge. President Trump was saying he spoke to Michael, and that Michael had paid this woman to protect him from a false allegation, and that Michael felt like it was his job to protect him, and that’s what he was doing. And he did it out of the kindness of his own heart. He never told anybody about it. And he was continuing to try to protect him up until the point where he felt he had to state what was true.

Colangelo: And this is what President Trump told you Michael Cohen said to him?

Hicks: That’s right.

Colangelo: How long had you known Michael Cohen by that point?

Hicks: Three-and-a-half years.

Colangelo: And did the idea that Mr. Cohen would have made a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels out of the kindness of his heart, was that consistent with your interactions with him up to that point?

Emil Bove, Trump’s lawyer: Objection.

The court: Overruled.

Hicks: I would say that would be out of character for Michael.

Colangelo: Why would it be out of character for Michael?

Bove: Objection.

The court: Overruled.

Hicks: I didn’t know Michael to be an especially charitable person, um, or selfless person. Um, he’s the kind of person who seeks credit.

Colangelo: Did Mr. Trump say anything else about this issue when he told you that Michael made the payment?

Hicks: Just that he thought it was a generous thing to do, and he was appreciative of the loyalty. That’s all I remember.

[nsacpi]

It's possible Cohen did this without guidance based on kindness and generosity and loyalty and other altruistic motives. And Trump was unaware.

Who knows. Maybe that's how the jury will see it.

[nsacpi]

Well, where are they getting this evidence that Trump doctored the records himself? It's not there.

The accountant said that he saw a payment to Cohen and believed it to be a legal expense. He made no mention that Trump forced him to change anything.

That's true. The evidence is entirely circumstantial. There is no evidence that Trump forced the accountant to treat it as a legal expense. I don't think this is a 100% slam dunk case. But I think it is pretty strong one. The jury would have to believe all of those things happened without his knowledge and involvement. Maybe. But a stretch. Imo. It wouldn't be crazy for some jurors to have reasonable doubts. But unlikely. Again imo.

[Garmel]

That's true. The evidence is entirely circumstantial. There is no evidence that Trump forced the accountant to treat it as a legal expense. I don't think this is a 100% slam dunk case. But I think it is pretty strong one. The jury would have to believe all of those things happened without his knowledge and involvement. Maybe. But a stretch. Imo. It wouldn't be crazy for some jurors to have reasonable doubts. But unlikely. Again imo.

There has to be solid evidence that the accountant did it under Trump's direction which there is none. You have to make leaps of logic to come to that conclusion. If you think this is a strong case then you are mistaken.

I'll say it again, there is absolutely no connection between the accountant and Trump and a whole lot of wishful thinking from those lawyers you quoted.

Even the guest lawyers on CNN are laughing at this case.

[Carp]

Sounds like a piece of cake to persuade the jury there is reasonable doubt and that it should acquit.

The fact that you can't admit this flimsy evidence should never have been enough to warrant charges, much less a trial, is telling about your true motivation. You don't care if he's innocent or not. You just want a guilty verdict.

[thethe]

Lawfare is their only option.

[nsacpi]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/n...smid=url-share

[nsacpi]

[Garmel]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/19/n...smid=url-share

"Marc F. Scholl, who served in the district attorney’s office for nearly four decades and worked on dozens of cases that included the false records charge, said prosecutors have checked all the legal boxes.

“If the jury chooses to believe the government’s evidence, then a conviction is warranted,” he said, though he noted Mr. Cohen, with all his baggage, “remains the linchpin” of the case. “The jury does not have to believe all of what Cohen has to say, but they have to believe enough of it.”

I can't believe a lawyer actually said that.

[thethe]

What a joke of a country. People that have cheered this on are pathetic.

[Garmel]

Sad part is this joke of a case might get Trump convicted. I'm hoping we have some people with integrity on the jury that will say no to this BS.

[Tapate50]

It really is

People like BL have gotten desperate

[nsacpi]

"Marc F. Scholl, who served in the district attorney’s office for nearly four decades and worked on dozens of cases that included the false records charge, said prosecutors have checked all the legal boxes.

“If the jury chooses to believe the government’s evidence, then a conviction is warranted,” he said, though he noted Mr. Cohen, with all his baggage, “remains the linchpin” of the case. “The jury does not have to believe all of what Cohen has to say, but they have to believe enough of it.”

I can't believe a lawyer actually said that.

I don't think this is unusual. Juries don't decide a witness is either 0% reliable or 100% reliable. It isn't binary.

[thethe]

I don't think this is unusual. Juries don't decide a witness is either 0% reliable or 100% reliable. It isn't binary.

How do you determine a percentage of reliability when you know it’s not 100%?

[nsacpi]

How do you determine a percentage of reliability when you know it’s not 100%?

That's something juries do in every case. Assess the credibility of witnesses on a sliding scale and apply the reasonable doubt standard in criminal cases. Trials are an adversarial setting. It is by design. And every case has some good points by both the prosecution and the defense. The jury's job is to assess all of that. Work through the facts and follow the law.