47 Posts
Sort by
Trump attorney expects an appeal in case of conviction
From CNN's Maureen Chowdhury
Will Scharf, an attorney for former President Donald Trump, said that Trump's team is prepared to appeal a jury verdict if Trump is convicted.
"If there were to be a conviction here, which we believe would be a gravely unjust verdict, we would speedily appeal tothe New York Appellatedivision, potentially to the NewYork Court of Appeals aswell. And we'll take that stepif we get there," Scharf told CNN's Jake Tapper.
"But so far, wethink that appears to be ahighly unlikely outcome here," Scharf added.
These are the jury instructions the judge delivered yesterday — and partly re-read in court today
From CNN's Antoinette Radford
Judge Juan Merchan deliveredhis instructions to jurorsyesterday before they began deliberations informer President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.
The jury asked in a note for the judge to re-read portions of them in court today.
Here’s what Merchan told jurors in his instructions yesterday:
- They must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes;
- They must set aside personal differences;
- They must not speculate about how long a potential sentence may be or what the punishment might be – that’s up to the judge;
- They can’t hold it against Trump for not testifying;
- The “people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime.” He reminds the jury it must not rest its verdict on speculation;
- They can consider whether a witness hopes to receive a benefit related to the trial, or if they have an interest in how the case ends;
- They cannot convict Trump on Michael Cohen’s testimony alone because he’s an accomplice, but they can use his evidence if corroborated with other evidence;
- The jury must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count – on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both;
- They must determine if Trump conspired to promote someone or prevent them from public office by unlawful means;
- They should deliberate with a view toward reaching an agreement, without surrendering individual judgment;
- Jurors’ notes cannot be used in place of evidence;
- The foreperson will deliver the verdict for each count after deliberations are over;
- Jurors must surrender their phones and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together.
Here's a reminder of the charges the jury is considering against Trump during deliberations
From CNN's Kristina Sgueglia, Laura Dolan, Kara Scannell, Jeremy Herb and Lauren del Valle
Donald Trump is accused by the Manhattan District Attorney’s office of34 state felony criminal chargesof falsifying business records, specifically pertaining to 11 invoices, 12 vouchers and 11 checks.
Prosecutors allege the payments were not a retainer for legal services, as they were recorded, butwere reimbursem*nts for paying off adult film star Stormy Daniels in exchange for her silence and the life rights to her story in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. While on the stand, Trump's former attorney and fixer Michael Cohen implicated Trump in the hush money scheme, saying he doled out $130,000 withTrump’s approval and was promised reimbursem*nt.
Paying hush money is not a crime. What prosecutors alleged is that Trump intentionally falsified documents to conceal his repayment to Cohen under the guise of a retainer for legal services to hide damaging information from voters during the 2016 presidential election.
According to the statute, for Trump to be guilty of a felony charge of falsifying business records, jurors must find Trump not only “cause(d) a false entry in the business records of an enterprise” while acting “with intent to defraud,” but also that the “intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
Prosecutors allege the underlying crime was trying to illegally influence the 2016 presidential election.
New poll: Most voters say Trump verdict will have little effect on their choice
From Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Director of Polling & Election Analytics
A newNPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist pollis the latest to suggest that any verdict in Donald Trump’s hush money trial is unlikely to have a major effect on voters’ choices come November.
Overall, 67% of registered voters say a guilty verdict in the trial would not make a difference to their vote, while 76% say the same about a not guilty verdict.
Those figures are similar to other recent polling on the topic, including a MayQuinnipiac pollwhich found that 65% of registered voters said that if Trump were convicted it would be unlikely to change their position on the presidential race.
Most notably in the new polls, just a small share of people who support Trump say that a guilty verdict would dissuade them from supporting him.
In the Marist poll, just 7% of those who say they would vote for Trump in the presidential race say a guilty verdict would make them less likely to back him, and in Quinnipiac’s data, only 6% of current Trump supporters say they would be less likely to back Trump if he were convicted.
ACNN poll conducted in Aprilas the trial’s jury was being selected found that only 24% of registered voters who support Trump said they might even reconsider their support if Trump were convicted of a crime.
Questions like this do not always align with the reality of how voters behave and often overstate the potential for movement, as many poll respondents use them as opportunities to express opinions they already hold.
For example, 24% of people who already support Trump in both the Marist and Quinnipiac polls say a conviction would make them MORE likely to support Trump, meaning that while a conviction might strengthen their loyalty for Trump, it wouldn’t change their vote.
Likewise, although almost 30% of Democrats in each poll say they would be less likely to back Trump if convicted, less than 10% currently do support Trump in the presidential race, meaning most of those who say they would be “less likely” to vote for Trump did not support him in the first place.
Trump and his team have left the courtroom
With the readback concluded, Trump stands and flashes a thumbs up to someone seated in the gallery.
Holding a stack of papers, he exits with his legal team, pumping his fist as he enters the courtroom hallway.
The judge is off the bench, and prosecutors have also left the courtroom.
The jury presented a new note and the judge read back instructions. Here’s the latest
From CNN's Christina Zdanowicz
If you are just joining us, here's what you missed:
A third note: The jury sent a new note this morning at 9:32 a.m. Here were their requests:
- The jury asked for a re-reading of the judge’s instruction starting with how the jury considers facts and what inferences they can be drawn from it, including a metaphor about rain.
- The jury wanted to hear the instructions related to the charges for count one.
- Jurors requested headphones to listen to the evidence laptop. Judge Juan Merchan also said they could have speakers.
Remember:The jury was not given a written copy of Merchan’s charging instructions when they began deliberating yesterday. While most federal judges will send the actual document with the jury as it deliberates, New York state courts forbid this practice.
You can read the full jury instructions here.
Testimony reading: After the jury was dismissed yesterday, attorneys for both sides hashed out which sections of testimony would be read to the jurors.Here are the pieces of testimony the jury requested:
- American Media Inc. chief David Pecker's testimony about his phone call with Trump in June 2016
- Pecker’s testimony about not finalizing Trump’s payment to AMI for Karen McDougal’s life rights
- Pecker's testimony about the August 2015 Trump Tower meeting
- Former Trump fixer Michael Cohen’s testimony about the Trump Tower meeting
Scene in the courtroom: In the testimony re-reading, one court reporter read the questions as the lawyer, while the court reporter sitting in the witness seat read the answers to the questions. Both women were reading with classic New York accents, while most of the jurors watched and some took notes.
The court reporters read the transcript word-for-word, but left out the objections. If an objection was sustained, they skipped over that Q&A.
Jury leaving courtroom to continue deliberations
The 12-person jury is leaving the courtroom to continue deliberations in Donald Trump's hush money trial.
Fact Check: Trump’s false claim that the judge isn’t requiring aunanimousverdict
From CNN's Daniel Dale and Jeremy Herb
Former President Donald Trump falsely claimed Wednesday that Judge Juan Merchan “is not requiring aunanimousdecision on the fake charges against me.”
Trump made the claim in asocial media postin which he described Merchan’s supposed position as “RIDICULOUS, UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND UNAMERICAN.” He was echoing assertions that had beencirculating among conservativesafter Fox News anchor John Robertswroteon social media earlier on Wednesday that “Judge Merchan just told the jury that they do not need unanimity to convict.”
Facts First:Trump's claim inaccurately depicts what Merchan said.
Merchantold the jury in his instructions on Wednesdaythat their verdict “must beunanimous” on each of the 34 counts that Trump faces and that, to convict Trump of felony falsification of business records, they would have tounanimously agree that he falsified business records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime – that other crime being a violation of a New York election law.
But Merchan explained that whilethis New York election lawprohibits people from conspiring to use “unlawful means” to promote a candidate’s election, jurors don’t have tounanimously agree on which particular “unlawful means” Trump may have used; they can find him guilty as long as theyunanimously agree that Trump used some unlawful means.
Prosecutors provided three theories of what unlawful means Trump used.Merchan told the jury: “Although you must concludeunanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not beunanimousas to what those unlawful means were. In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following:(1)violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA;(2)the falsification of other business records; or(3)violation of tax laws.”
Lee Kovarsky, a University of Texas law professor who has been following the trial,put it this wayon social media on Wednesday: “If a law says NO VEHICLES IN THE PARK & list of vehicles includes mopeds and motorcycles, all the instruction means is that you needunanimousconclusion of vehicle but notunanimouson whether vehicle was moped or harley.”
Court reporters are now reading Michael Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting
We've moved on to the jury's fourth request for testimony that will be read back to them in court: Michael Cohen discussing a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower.
This is the same meeting that David Pecker discussed in testimony read back to the jurors a short time ago.
Cohen was responding to questions from prosecutor Susan Hoffinger in this portion of his testimony. Trump's longtime fixer rehashed the meeting between then-National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, Trump and himself. It included discussion about how the magazine could help Trump's campaign, including by potentially giving Cohen advance notice of damagin stories about Trump and trying to stop it, he testified.
