Prosecutor issues CRUCIAL news on Trump jury

The Legal Breakdown with BTC & Glenn Kirschner
27 May 202411:32

Summary

TLDRIn this episode of 'Legal Breakdown,' hosts Brian Tyer Cohen and Glenn Kersner discuss the upcoming jury deliberation in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial. They delve into the secrecy of the deliberation process, the dynamics within the jury room, and the implications of quick versus extended deliberations. Cohen shares insights from his experience as a prosecutor, highlighting the intensity of post-verdict discussions and the factors that could influence the jury's decision. The hosts also speculate on the potential outcomes, with Kersner expressing skepticism about a not-guilty verdict due to the strength of the prosecution's case.

Takeaways

  • 📅 The trial of Donald Trump in New York is imminent with the jury deliberation days away.
  • 🔍 The video will provide daily updates on the trial, encouraging viewers to subscribe for ongoing coverage.
  • 🎥 The host, Glenn, shares his experience as a prosecutor and his curiosity about the jury deliberation process.
  • 🚫 Jury deliberations are typically private, with rare exceptions where secrecy can be pierced, and are considered a 'black hole' to outsiders.
  • 🗣️ After a verdict, the host has entered deliberation rooms to see large sheets of paper with notes, indicating how jurors discuss and analyze evidence.
  • 🤔 In cases of hung juries, the host has had in-depth discussions with jurors to understand their perceptions and thoughts on evidence and witnesses.
  • 🔥 Deliberations can become heated, with jurors continuing to argue their points even after a mistrial is declared.
  • 👥 Jurors are first instructed to select a foreman to facilitate discussions and then are given freedom to deliberate as they see fit.
  • ⏳ The host predicts that the jury will likely take several days to deliberate given the length of the trial and complexity of the evidence.
  • 💡 The host does not expect a not-guilty verdict due to the strength of the prosecution's case and the evidence presented.
  • 🤔 The host anticipates that the first communication from the jury might be a note with questions rather than a verdict.

Q & A

  • What is the significance of the term 'black hole' in the context of jury deliberations?

    -The term 'black hole' refers to the secrecy and privacy of jury deliberations, which are designed to be confidential and are rarely revealed to the public. This secrecy is a fundamental aspect of the legal process to ensure fairness and impartiality in decision-making.

  • Why is it rare to pierce the veil of jury secrecy?

    -The veil of jury secrecy is rarely pierced because it is considered a term of art that upholds the sanctity and privacy of the deliberation process. Exceptions to this rule are few and only occur under specific circumstances that are not detailed in the script.

  • What is the purpose of the large easel provided to the jury during deliberations?

    -The large easel is provided to the jury for them to take notes, make notations, and organize their thoughts during deliberations. These notes can include points from the evidence, witness testimonies, and other factors that aid in their decision-making process.

  • What does the speaker imply about the atmosphere in the deliberation room after a hung jury?

    -The speaker implies that the atmosphere can remain heated even after deliberations have concluded and a hung jury has been declared. Jurors may continue to argue their points and express strong opinions about the case, indicating the intensity of the deliberation process.

  • What is the first task that jurors are typically told to do when they retire to deliberate?

    -The first task that jurors are typically told to do is to select a foreperson, someone who can facilitate the civil exchange of ideas and arguments among the jurors during the deliberation process.

  • What does the judge typically instruct the jurors regarding taking a vote immediately after they retire to deliberate?

    -The judge typically instructs the jurors that they are encouraged not to immediately take a vote when they retire to deliberate. This is to prevent them from becoming entrenched in their positions before having a chance to discuss their views on the evidence.

  • What is the general rule of thumb regarding the duration of jury deliberations in relation to the length of the trial?

    -The general rule of thumb is that if a trial took a week, a jury might take a day to go through the evidence. If it took two weeks, they might take two days, and so on. This rule suggests that the deliberation time is often proportional to the length of the trial.

  • Why does the speaker believe it is unlikely to see a not-guilty verdict in Donald Trump's criminal trial?

    -The speaker believes it is unlikely to see a not-guilty verdict because they think the prosecution presented a compelling and professional case on the evidence. The speaker finds it hard to imagine all 12 jurors concluding that there was no crime committed by Donald Trump or that the evidence failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on all charges.

  • What is the typical response from the judge when the jury asks for clarification on a factual matter during deliberations?

    -The judge will almost always respond to a factual question by stating that the jurors' recollection of the evidence and the facts control, and they cannot provide any guidance on matters of fact.

  • How does the judge handle questions from the jury about legal principles during deliberations?

    -When the jury has a question about a legal principle, the judge will turn to the prosecution and defense and ask if they have any proposed answers to the juror's question. The judge will then provide a response that aims to clarify the legal principle in question.

  • What does the speaker suggest about the correlation between the length of deliberation and the likelihood of a guilty verdict?

    -The speaker suggests that a quick verdict is typically favorable for the prosecution because it indicates that the jurors saw the evidence similarly to how the prosecution and others involved in the case did. However, there is no specific time frame that definitively suggests a guilty verdict is unlikely; it's more about the diminishing returns as deliberation time extends.

Outlines

00:00

🏛️ Jury Deliberation Process in Criminal Trials

This paragraph discusses the upcoming jury deliberation in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial and the mystery surrounding the deliberation process. The author highlights the rarity of piercing the veil of jury secrecy and shares personal experiences as a former prosecutor, including entering the deliberation room post-verdict. The author describes the scene as reminiscent of a movie, with large sheets of paper taped to walls filled with jurors' notes. They also recount conversations with jurors after a hung jury to understand their perceptions of the evidence and witnesses, which helped in deciding whether to retry or dismiss a case. The paragraph emphasizes the intensity of deliberations, with jurors continuing to argue even after a mistrial is declared.

05:02

📊 Assessing the Likelihood of a Verdict in Trump's Trial

The speaker in this paragraph shares their professional assessment of the evidence presented in Donald Trump's trial, expressing skepticism that all 12 jurors would find him not guilty on all 34 charges. They consider a hung jury a possibility but find it unlikely due to the strength of the prosecution's case. The paragraph also touches on the process once juries start deliberating, including the selection of a foreman and the judge's instructions. The speaker predicts that the first communication from the jury will likely be a note with questions, rather than a verdict, and distinguishes between the types of questions a jury might ask—factual and legal. They also discuss the common belief that a quick verdict favors the prosecution and explain why this is the case, while also noting that there's no definitive time frame that signals the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

10:03

🔍 Anticipating the Jury's Deliberation Duration and Outcome

In this paragraph, the discussion revolves around the anticipation of the jury's deliberation duration and its potential implications for the outcome of the trial. The speaker suggests that there's a point of diminishing returns for a guilty verdict as deliberation time extends, except in cases with an exceptionally high number of charges. They use their experience from a six-month RICO trial to illustrate how juries can deliberate for extended periods without indicating a problem. The speaker also addresses the common belief that a shorter deliberation time indicates a higher likelihood of a guilty verdict, agreeing with this notion but noting that there's no specific time frame that definitively suggests the opposite. They encourage viewers to subscribe for ongoing coverage of the trial's deliberation phase.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Jury Deliberation

Jury deliberation refers to the process where jurors discuss and evaluate the evidence presented during a trial to reach a verdict. In the context of the video, it is the central focus as the speakers discuss the upcoming deliberation in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial. The script mentions that deliberations are typically private and that the process can sometimes be intense, with jurors arguing and discussing the evidence in detail.

💡Donald Trump's Criminal Trial

This keyword refers to the legal proceedings against former U.S. President Donald Trump in New York. The video's theme revolves around the anticipation of the jury's deliberation in this trial. The speakers discuss the potential outcomes and the process that will unfold once the prosecution and defense have rested their cases.

💡Prosecutors

Prosecutors are legal representatives of the government who bring a case against an individual or entity in a criminal trial. In the script, it is mentioned that after the defense and prosecution rest their cases, the prosecutors have the opportunity for closing arguments and a rebuttal, which is a final word to the jury before deliberation begins.

💡Defense

The defense in a criminal trial refers to the legal team representing the accused, who works to present evidence and arguments to counter the prosecution's case. The script discusses the defense's role in resting their case and potentially influencing the jury's deliberation process.

💡Jury Secrecy

Jury secrecy is the principle that the deliberation process of a jury is kept confidential to ensure fairness and impartiality in the judicial system. The video script emphasizes the sanctity and privacy of jury deliberations, noting that it is rare for the veil of secrecy to be pierced.

💡Verdict

A verdict is the decision made by a jury at the end of a trial, determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The script discusses the anticipation of the jury's verdict in Donald Trump's trial and the process that leads up to it, including deliberation.

💡Hung Jury

A hung jury occurs when the members of the jury cannot reach a unanimous decision on the verdict. The script mentions this term in the context of the speaker's experience, where they would go back to the deliberation room after a hung jury to discuss the case further with the jurors.

💡Legal Principle

Legal principles are fundamental rules or doctrines that form the basis of a legal system. In the script, it is mentioned that the jury might have questions about legal principles, such as the definition of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which the judge can clarify but will not provide guidance on factual matters.

💡Evidence

Evidence in a legal context refers to the information presented in a trial that is used to persuade the jury of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The script discusses how jurors will review the evidence during their deliberations, and the importance of the prosecution presenting a compelling case based on the evidence.

💡Reasonable Doubt

Reasonable doubt is a legal standard that requires the jury to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt in order to return a guilty verdict. The script mentions that the jury might seek clarification on this concept, indicating its significance in the deliberation process.

💡Factual Questions

Factual questions are inquiries related to the specific details or events that occurred, as opposed to legal interpretations. The script describes how the judge typically responds to factual questions from the jury by reminding them that their recollection of the evidence is what controls, without providing additional guidance.

Highlights

Discussion on the upcoming jury deliberation in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial.

Reminder of daily breaking coverage of the trial and call to subscribe for updates.

Explanation of the jury deliberation process and its secrecy.

Personal experience as a prosecutor observing jury deliberation rooms.

Description of the scene in a deliberation room post-verdict.

Insights gained from hung juries and their deliberation discussions.

Potential heated environments within the deliberation room.

The initial task for jurors: selecting a foreman to facilitate discussions.

Judge's instructions to jurors on deliberation and avoiding early voting.

Jurors' tendency to take time to review evidence thoroughly.

Estimation of deliberation time based on trial duration.

Speculation on the likelihood of a not-guilty verdict in the case.

Assessment of the prosecution's compelling case and evidence presented.

Potential for a hung jury and its implications for the case.

Common types of questions juries may ask during deliberation.

Judge's role in responding to jurors' questions about legal principles.

Debunking the myth that shorter deliberation times always indicate guilt.

Importance of the case's complexity and its impact on deliberation time.

Invitation to subscribe for ongoing coverage of the trial's deliberation.

Transcripts

00:00

you're watching the legal breakdown so

00:01

we are just days away from the jury

00:03

deliberating in Donald Trump's New York

00:04

criminal trial so I really want to get

00:06

into what happens in that deliberation

00:08

room uh so Glenn and I are going to dive

00:10

into that since it's especially timely

00:12

right now but first just a reminder that

00:14

we're going to be doing daily breaking

00:15

coverage of this trial so if you want to

00:16

follow along with what happens please

00:18

make sure to subscribe all right so

00:20

Glenn let's say the defense and the

00:21

prosecutors both rest closing arguments

00:24

rebuttal final word from prosecutors

00:26

then the jury deliberates so talk about

00:28

what happens in that room because this

00:30

whole process feels like a like a bit of

00:33

a black hole for most of us and it's

00:35

designed to be a black hole very rarely

00:39

do we get to pierce the veil of jury

00:41

secrecy that's a term of art the

00:43

sanctity and the privacy of jury

00:47

deliberations can almost never be

00:50

violated there are a few exceptions

00:52

which we can talk about in a few minutes

00:54

I will say for all the years that I was

00:56

a prosecutor trying cases I never was

00:58

called for jury service I wish I had

01:00

been because I would have loved to have

01:03

been in that deliberation room just to

01:05

see how it generally works I get to walk

01:09

into the jury deliberation room after a

01:11

verdict is returned at least in local

01:13

court and DC not in federal court

01:15

different rules but and what I would

01:18

often see um made me feel a little bit

01:21

like it was a scene from the movies

01:23

because I'd walk in and there would be

01:25

these enormous sheets of paper from like

01:28

a large easel that is provided to the

01:31

jury for their use during deliberations

01:33

and they will have torn off the sheets

01:35

and they will have taped them to the

01:36

walls and they will have all sorts of

01:39

notations on those various sheets that

01:42

obviously aided and assisted them in

01:45

their deliberations and the the way I

01:48

would glean a little bit of insight into

01:50

how deliberations went is particularly

01:53

after it was a hung jury when they

01:55

couldn't unanimously agree on a verdict

01:58

either guilty or not guilty I would go

02:00

back to the deliberation room and I

02:01

would spend a long time talking with the

02:04

jurors about their perception of the

02:07

witnesses of the evidence of the defense

02:10

because what I had to do was determine

02:12

whether I wanted to retry the case or

02:15

perhaps just dismiss it and not take it

02:17

to a retrial and jurors would talk

02:20

openly about you know their perception

02:22

of the evidence what Witnesses they

02:24

credited what Witnesses they questioned

02:26

maybe they were a little less than

02:27

credible where the holes in the evidence

02:30

were in their estimation and maybe what

02:33

I could do to try to shore up or fill

02:35

those holes and I will tell you Brian

02:38

even when I was in there after uh jury

02:40

deliberations had concluded and a hung

02:43

jury was declared a mistrial was

02:45

declared by the judge it would still be

02:47

heated you know I would see jurors

02:50

arguing with one another continuing to

02:52

argue their po points whether in favor

02:55

of conviction or in favor of acquittal

02:57

so often I think it does get quite

03:00

heated um interestingly there would be

03:02

times that we'd be in the courtroom

03:04

while the jury was deliberating and we

03:06

would actually hear pounding on the

03:08

walls we never knew what was going on

03:10

there if somebody was making a point or

03:12

if they were you know fist to cuffs were

03:15

breaking out and they're throwing each

03:16

other up against the wall but you know

03:17

it does get quite heated so I think U

03:20

the first thing that jurors are told to

03:22

do when they retire to deliberate is to

03:25

select a four person somebody who can

03:28

sort of facilitate

03:30

the Civil exchange of ideas and

03:33

arguments and that's usually the first

03:36

task they have and after that the judge

03:39

tells the jurors you are free to

03:41

deliberate however you would like

03:44

there's a standard judge instruction

03:46

that instruction of the law that goes

03:47

something like you know you are

03:49

encouraged not to immediately take a

03:52

vote when you retire to deliberate

03:55

because you may become entrenched in

03:57

your position before you've ever had a

03:59

chance

04:00

to discuss you know your view of the

04:03

evidence so you're not required to wait

04:05

but you might want to wait so I do think

04:07

some jurors abide by that instruction I

04:09

think some juries take straw holes right

04:11

up front because maybe the case was

04:14

really clear one way or another and they

04:16

want to take a straw poll to see if they

04:19

can maybe move to a verdict very quickly

04:22

but you know in my experience jurors

04:24

like to take their time going through

04:26

all of the evidence that they've seen um

04:28

you know there's kind of any number of

04:30

rules of thumb like if a jury took a if

04:33

a trial took a week a jury might take a

04:36

day to go through the evidence if it

04:37

took two weeks they might take two days

04:40

you know I've tried as many cases as

04:42

most people um and I would say that's

04:45

probably probably a pretty good rule of

04:47

thumb you know with a trial like this

04:49

that lasted you know in Earnest I think

04:51

five or six weeks as far as the

04:53

presentation of evidence we could see

04:55

the jury take several days to go through

04:56

the evidence um but we could also see

04:59

them res it fairly quickly what I don't

05:01

think we're going to see Brian is an

05:03

acqu a not- guilty verdict why do I say

05:06

that you know I think the prosecution

05:09

presented a really compelling

05:11

Professional Case on the evidence so I

05:14

am hardpressed to see all 12 jurors

05:17

saying no crime here by Donald Trump or

05:21

the evidence failed to prove Donald

05:22

Trump's guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

05:25

on all 34 charges I find that very

05:29

unlikely now a hung jury you can always

05:32

have a hung jury it only takes one you

05:35

know I still my assessment of the

05:37

evidence and if there's one thing I know

05:39

over my 30 years as a prosecutor it's

05:41

how to assess the quality and quantity

05:43

of evidence in a criminal case I think

05:45

the evidence is strong I think the case

05:47

is a common sense one because all of

05:50

these crimes were committed for the

05:52

benefit of Donald Trump indeed according

05:54

to Michael Cohen at the direction of

05:56

Donald Trump which makes complete sense

05:59

both as a matter of Common Sense and as

06:02

a matter of the evidence and the law so

06:04

um but you know every jury deliberates a

06:07

little bit differently and um we'll just

06:10

have to see when we hear anything from

06:13

the jury I do suspect the first thing

06:15

we'll hear from the jury Brian is not a

06:17

verdict it's likely to be a note because

06:19

the other thing in my experience that we

06:21

often see once juries go out to

06:24

deliberate is they come up with

06:26

questions and there are two kinds of

06:28

questions that we typically see from

06:30

juries one is one involves factual

06:34

questions questions of fact like you

06:35

know your honor we can't quite remember

06:38

what witness number seven said about

06:41

what time of day a particular thing

06:43

happened can we get some additional

06:46

clarification of that and I can tell you

06:48

Brian the judge will almost always

06:50

respond to that note by saying your

06:53

recollection of the evidence and the

06:55

facts control and I cannot provide you

06:59

any guidance on matters of fact but then

07:02

they may say you know what judge we have

07:03

a question about a legal principle like

07:06

you gave us a definition of what proof

07:09

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt means but we'd

07:11

like a little bit more clarification on

07:13

that because we're having some

07:15

disagreements that is something that the

07:17

judge will then turn to the parties

07:19

prosecutors and defense and say do you

07:21

all have any proposed answer to the

07:24

juror's question about maybe clarifying

07:28

a legal principle

07:30

and that's something that judges will do

07:32

frequently they'll try to be responsive

07:34

to the jury's legal questions but they

07:36

will never respond in substance to the

07:39

jury's factual questions Glenn I feel

07:41

like it's common knowledge that a

07:43

shorter deliberation means a higher

07:45

likelihood that the defendant is guilty

07:47

but is is there a cut off I guess in

07:49

this trial specifically where you feel

07:51

like a deliberation going past a certain

07:53

length of time suggests that a guilty

07:55

verdict isn't likely I'm trying to I'm

07:57

trying to give us some information to

07:58

arm us with information so that while

08:00

they're deliberating we have a better

08:03

idea of what to look out for if

08:05

something happens soon versus something

08:06

happens later yeah Brian you're

08:08

absolutely right in your assessment that

08:11

a quick verdict is typically a good

08:13

verdict for the prosecution um and there

08:16

there's a reason for that when you think

08:18

about what it takes to get a case to

08:19

trial you've had after the crime was

08:22

committed a police investigation then

08:25

the prosecutors will often get involved

08:27

in the investigation then we present all

08:29

the evidence to the grand jury and the

08:31

grand jury will make an assessment about

08:33

whether there's enough to indict the

08:35

defendant once the defendant is indicted

08:37

he or she will be presented in court and

08:40

there's all sorts of pre-trial

08:42

proceedings in the runup to the trial

08:45

where defendants will for example make

08:47

motions to dismiss for any number of

08:49

reasons make motions to suppress

08:51

evidence and the the case has been

08:54

vetted through lots of people and lots

08:57

of processes in the runup to trial and

09:01

by the time the the prosecution believes

09:04

that the right thing to do is to present

09:06

this case to 12 jurors you know they are

09:11

we they prosecutors are typically

09:13

feeling pretty confident and comfortable

09:16

that they have enough evidence to prove

09:18

guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt of

09:20

course prosecutors don't always win we

09:22

don't always convince the jury but I

09:24

think that's why the prevailing wisdom

09:26

and it has been my experience that a Qui

09:29

verdict is a good verdict why because

09:32

the jurors ended up seeing it the way a

09:35

whole bunch of other people both

09:37

professionals and lay people like Grand

09:40

jurors saw the evidence so a quick

09:43

verdict is typically a good verdict for

09:46

justice in my estimation for the

09:48

prosecution for the victims because it's

09:50

a guilty verdict however there is no

09:54

length of time that passes that you can

09:57

point to a day or a week or two weeks as

10:03

meaning that all hope is lost I do think

10:06

it is there's a point of diminishing

10:08

returns the longer a deliberation goes

10:12

the less likely you are to see a guilty

10:15

verdict with the following exception I

10:17

tried a six-month Rico Rico trial for

10:19

example and there were dozens and dozens

10:22

and dozens of criminal charges that had

10:25

to be resolved by the jury that's the

10:27

kind of thing where they could

10:28

deliberate for weeks and weeks and weeks

10:31

and we will hear nothing from them and

10:33

that doesn't mean that there's a hang-up

10:35

that doesn't mean they're unable to

10:38

unanimously resolve the charges it just

10:40

means they need a lot of time to pour

10:43

through the evidence this is not really

10:45

that kind of a case but 34 felony counts

10:48

and a trial that spanned five or six

10:49

weeks you know they could go a week and

10:52

we could hear nothing or they could

10:54

return a verdict within a day or two

10:56

okay well we will obviously be here

10:58

covering the enti of that as long as the

11:00

deliberation goes on so for those

11:02

watching right now if you want to follow

11:03

along with our coverage please make sure

11:05

to subscribe the links to both of our

11:06

channels are right here on the screen

11:08

highly recommend you subscribing Glenn

11:10

is fast on his way to a million so if

11:12

you're not yet subscribed to his Channel

11:13

please go ahead and my channel is up to

11:16

uh heading on its on its way to 3

11:17

million so if you're not subscribed to

11:19

this Channel Please Subscribe as well

11:21

I'm Brian tyer Cohen and I'm Glenn

11:22

kersner you're watching the legal

11:24

breakdown

11:27

[Music]

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

العلامات ذات الصلة
Jury DeliberationCriminal TrialDonald TrumpLegal AnalysisProsecutionDefense StrategyEvidence ReviewVerdict PredictionLegal BreakdownCourtroom Dynamics
هل تحتاج إلى ملخص باللغة العربية؟