NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[wbrocks67]

Are we assuming that will be allowed? Isn't the charge solely a felony one?

[EJ24]

Regardless of what you feel about Trump, you almost HAVE to acquit if you're on that jury.
 
The law states that to convict someone you must find them guilty of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" and quite frankly, the defense has done a spectacular job of introducing tons of doubt.

Michael Cohen is the star witness for the prosecution and has already admitted the following under oath:
- He has a history of lying, including lying to Congress.
- He has a personal stake in seeing Trump convicted.
- He stole $50,000 from the Trump organization.

This is the guy who the jury is supposed to believe when it comes to Trump ordering the records to be falsified.

Also, the prosecution has done a poor job of demonstrating why this payment was made. In order for it to break the law, it has to be a campaign finance violation, in other words, done to conceal something that might harm the campaign. But they haven't proven that. The defense said it was done to save Donald from embarrassment to his family. If you're on the jury, how do you know?
I think he's gonna be found not guilty. Like 95% certain. If I'm on that jury, i'm not voting to convict based on this trial.

[wbrocks67]

Regardless of what you feel about Trump, you almost HAVE to acquit if you're on that jury.
 
The law states that to convict someone you must find them guilty of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" and quite frankly, the defense has done a spectacular job of introducing tons of doubt.

Michael Cohen is the star witness for the prosecution and has already admitted the following under oath:
- He has a history of lying, including lying to Congress.
- He has a personal stake in seeing Trump convicted.
- He stole $50,000 from the Trump organization.

This is the guy who the jury is supposed to believe when it comes to Trump ordering the records to be falsified.

Also, the prosecution has done a poor job of demonstrating why this payment was made. In order for it to break the law, it has to be a campaign finance violation, in other words, done to conceal something that might harm the campaign. But they haven't proven that. The defense said it was done to save Donald from embarrassment to his family. If you're on the jury, how do you know?
I think he's gonna be found not guilty. Like 95% certain. If I'm on that jury, i'm not voting to convict based on this trial.

None of this is really accurate, let alone the "prosecution has done a poor job demonstrating why this payment was made" - they made it crystal clear why the payment was made. Not sure where you've been.

Also, again, all of the things you listed about Cohen don't mean he's lying about his testimony - when his testimony has now been corroborated numerous times through other evidence.

[Farmlands]

EJ24 mostly sums up what I feel about this trial as well. The standard of reasonable doubt definitely comes into play when the prosecution's key witness openly admits to stealing $60.000 from the person he's testifying against because, at that time, he hated him enough to do it. And perhaps more...

[SteveRogers]

Assuming misdemeanor only becomes allowed and they convict on misdemeanors and not felonies, I think it means either they don't understand that part of the law or they don't believe Cohen. Because if you believe Cohen's testimony, seems clear Trump was only worried about the effect on the election. Pecker also spoke to that somewhat, but it was more based on his impression of Trump's intentions, whereas Trump made it more explicit with Cohen.

You’re ascribing a certain level of intellectual rigor to the jury deliberation process when in reality juries will opt to split the baby if given the option simply because it’s the path of least resistance.

 It remains to be seen whether either side wants to give the jury that option (I guess we’ll find out shortly when the charge conference begins). If you’re the prosecution, it’s a gamble because you may not want to give the jury that easy out. You’d expect the average defendant to want the instruction in there, but obviously Trump wants total exoneration.

[GeorgiaModerate]

EJ24 mostly sums up what I feel about this trial as well. The standard of reasonable doubt definitely comes into play when the prosecution's key witness openly admits to stealing $60.000 from the person he's testifying against because, at that time, he hated him enough to do it. And perhaps more...

Paul Manafort was convicted even though Rick Gates, the star witness against him, stole $3 million from Manafort (and this did come out during the trial).

[SteveRogers]

Are we assuming that will be allowed? Isn't the charge solely a felony one?

I don’t know the ins and outs of New York criminal procedure, but generally in most jurisdictions either side in a criminal case can ask that the jury be instructed to consider a “lesser included offense” if they find a defendant not guilty (or are hung) on the charged offense.

In Texas courts, the prosecution always has the option of requesting the instruction on a lesser-included offense. Likewise, the defense can get the instruction in (even if the prosecution doesn’t want it) if the court finds that there’s evidence from which a rational jury could find the defendant guilty of only the lesser offense.

[brucejoel99]

If the prosecution didn't meet their burden of proof showing that Trump was the one who directed the falsification of the business records, then the defense did it for them: "Our issue is to get Cohen on the right page without giving the appearance that we are following instructions from Giuliani or the President" is corroboration of the cover-up being done knowingly by & per Trump. Couple Costello's crapshoot with the prior-admitted corroborating documentation as to the Weisselberg scheme & the fact that Trump signed the invoiced checks, & I think the likeliest outcome is that jurors will be convinced by the prosecution's case that Trump knew exactly what was happening, & why. I genuinely still can't believe the defense nonsensically allowed Costello to mess things up. There's a reason I begged for him!

[wbrocks67]

EJ24 mostly sums up what I feel about this trial as well. The standard of reasonable doubt definitely comes into play when the prosecution's key witness openly admits to stealing $60.000 from the person he's testifying against because, at that time, he hated him enough to do it. And perhaps more...

Everyone already knows Cohen is a liar and a crook though - this should be baked in. Just because you are a bad person and/or lie about something else doesn't mean that all of his testimony is a wash. It should be taken with a grain of salt, sure, but again, there was numerous pieces of evidence that lined up with exactly what Cohen said. It's not like nothing backed up Cohen's testimony on the matter.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I think people who think Cohen was a disaster are missing an important nuance.  Jurors don’t expect witnesses who are themselves ex-con lowlifes who flipped on a Defendant to be honest men, they expect them to be truthful.  Cohen had rough cross-examination, but he came across as someone who was telling the truth during their testimony, didn’t minimize their own bad deeds, and was pretty forthright on the stand.  

It was equally clear that he was a sleazy lowlife crook, but Cohen would’ve been far less credible had he been billed as an honest man rather than simply a truthful witness.  It may seem like splitting hairs or semantics, but it is a very important distinction.  I think Cohen came out of the cross-examination bruised, but with his credibility fully intact.  I also think because the defense has been such a sh!tshow during the rest of the trial, the fact that they did a competent cross-examination caused it to be covered as more effective than it actually was.

By contrast, Stormy Daniels did not present as a truthful witness.  She often seemed to be trying to figure out what the Prosecutor wanted her to say and made some claims that I don’t think anyone would possibly believe (the best example being her claim that it wasn’t about the money for her ).  

Jurors often don’t expect witnesses in a case like this to be good people, but they expect them to testify truthfully.  Cohen very clearly did so imo.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Regardless of what you feel about Trump, you almost HAVE to acquit if you're on that jury.
 
The law states that to convict someone you must find them guilty of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" and quite frankly, the defense has done a spectacular job of introducing tons of doubt.

Michael Cohen is the star witness for the prosecution and has already admitted the following under oath:
- He has a history of lying, including lying to Congress.
- He has a personal stake in seeing Trump convicted.
- He stole $50,000 from the Trump organization.

This is the guy who the jury is supposed to believe when it comes to Trump ordering the records to be falsified.

Also, the prosecution has done a poor job of demonstrating why this payment was made. In order for it to break the law, it has to be a campaign finance violation, in other words, done to conceal something that might harm the campaign. But they haven't proven that. The defense said it was done to save Donald from embarrassment to his family. If you're on the jury, how do you know?
I think he's gonna be found not guilty. Like 95% certain. If I'm on that jury, i'm not voting to convict based on this trial.

None of this is really accurate, let alone the "prosecution has done a poor job demonstrating why this payment was made" - they made it crystal clear why the payment was made. Not sure where you've been.

Also, again, all of the things you listed about Cohen don't mean he's lying about his testimony - when his testimony has now been corroborated numerous times through other evidence.

I don’t get why people here who keep acting like the cross examination of Cohen was so devastating keep dancing around this fact

[dspNY]

About Cohen being a sleazeball: the jurors already knew that before the trial. Sammy the Bull Gravano was a much nastier individual (a murderer) and the jury in that situation still found him credible enough to get John Gotti convicted. Jurors always see sleazeballs connected with the defendant testify against said defendant, especially in New York

[SteveRogers]

Yep, it’s something that prosecutors need to prime the jury on (ideally starting with voir dire), but it’s part of the job. If you want to know what’s going on in a snake pit, you’re going to have to call some snakes as witnesses.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

About Cohen being a sleazeball: the jurors already knew that before the trial. Sammy the Bull Gravano was a much nastier individual (a murderer) and the jury in that situation still found him credible enough to get John Gotti convicted. Jurors always see sleazeballs connected with the defendant testify against said defendant, especially in New York

That’s another example.  Gravano is a conniving murderous psychopath who’d happily murder anyone for a nickel.  He was a complete sociopath and there was simply no hiding that.  When he testified about the murders he committed (including of at least one member of his own family), I’d bet you that every single person on that jury thought that Gravano should be executed the second his testimony was over (if not sooner ).  However, he didn’t shy away from testifying about it.  Of the 19 or 20 (I forget which) murders Gravano testified about committing, he only implicated Gotti in four…but you can be d*** sure the jurors believed Gotti was involved in those four murders.

[GeorgiaModerate]

Yep, it’s something that prosecutors need to prime the jury on (ideally starting with voir dire), but it’s part of the job. If you want to know what’s going on in a snake pit, you’re going to have to call some snakes as witnesses.

This is a terrific line.

[wbrocks67]

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1792996761407197508

[Holmes]

They’re already rolling out the “bias Democratic Manhattan jury” excuse.

[emailking]

I actually still think outright acquittal is underrated. But conviction is very iffy, though I think that's more likely than not. If it happens, I don't think it will be because the jury was biased.

[President Johnson]

They’re already rolling out the “bias Democratic Manhattan jury” excuse.

That's why I believe conviction won't change the trajectory of the election.

[emailking]

Defense asks judge to instruct jury that hush money is not illegal. Judge says he doesn't think it's necessary

Defense attorney Emil Bove argued that he wanted the judge to instruct the jury that hush money is not illegal.

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass opposed Bove's request and went on to say the defense was asking the judge to make their legal arguments for them.

Shortly after, Judge Juan Merchan weighed in and said he would not include it because it came out several times in testimony that hush money is not illegal.

Merchan said that he suspects the defense will make that argument during summations and the prosecution won't dispute that. He said giving an instruction to that effect is taking it too far.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-hush-money-trial-05-21-24/index.html

[emailking]

It sounds like another significant ruling is the judge ruled it's up to the jury to decide if the if the crime being covered up by the fraud was illegal and the prosecution doesn't have to prove it was unlawful. Not sure I have this right.

[GeorgiaModerate]

They’re already rolling out the “bias Democratic Manhattan jury” excuse.

Didn't Trump just claim that he was going to win New York?

[MillennialModerate]

I actually still think outright acquittal is underrated. But conviction is very iffy, though I think that's more likely than not. If it happens, I don't think it will be because the jury was biased.

I’m not even being “negative” here… I genuinely believe acquittal is the most likely outcome.

The truth is it’s a frivolous case anyway and the other 3 cases that were serious - should have came first. Because those the guilt is clear

[Landslide Lyndon]

They’re already rolling out the “bias Democratic Manhattan jury” excuse.

Didn't Trump just claim that he was going to win New York?

But the jury isn't from the entire New York state you see, it's from Manhattan.

[Dan the Roman]

I think acquittal is most likely not because of Cohen, Stormy, or technicalities but because jurors decide the entire process has been a circus, and they dislike everyone.

This is actually where Trump's defense has performed worst. One of their best bets was to persuade the jury that the prosecution was wasting their time, banking on the fact that 95% of jurors do not want to be there. Instead, they have wasted the jury's time themselves.