Trump’s attorneys fail MISERABLY in court on first official trial date

The Legal Breakdown with BTC & Glenn Kirschner
22 Apr 202417:50

Summary

TLDRIn this episode of 'Legal Breakdown,' hosts Brian and Glenn discuss the opening day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan. They highlight the prosecution's strong opening statement, backed by considerable evidence against Trump, and the defense's struggle to undermine it. The hosts also address Trump's claims of paying Michael Cohen for legal services, which they argue is a cover-up for reimbursements related to hush money payments. They touch on Trump's defense attorney's statement about influencing elections and the implications of Trump falling asleep during the trial, suggesting it might indicate the toll the proceedings are taking on him. The conversation concludes with a discussion about the jury composition, including concerns about a juror who gets news exclusively from platforms like Truth Social and Twitter, and the importance of jurors maintaining impartiality based on evidence presented.

Takeaways

  • 📚 The first day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan has concluded, marking his first criminal trial.
  • 🔍 The prosecution presented a strong opening statement with considerable evidence against Trump, described as 'mountainous'.
  • 🧐 The defense did not appear to provide substantial counter-evidence to the prosecution's case during their opening statement.
  • 🚩 The prosecution's strategy included highlighting incriminating evidence, acknowledging weaknesses, and building credibility with the jury.
  • 🤔 Trump's defense attorney's statement that 'there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election' was critiqued as misleading in the context of legal violations.
  • 💤 Donald Trump was observed falling asleep during the trial, which some interpret as a sign of his unconcern or exhaustion from the proceedings.
  • 📉 The trial is one of four criminal trials against the former president, indicating a potentially heavy toll on him.
  • 🤨 The presence of two lawyers on the jury raised discussions about the potential impact of their legal expertise on the trial's outcome.
  • 📰 One juror's admission of getting news exclusively from Twitter and Truth Social raised concerns about potential bias, but was not a disqualifying factor on its own.
  • 👀 The prosecution had the opportunity to strike jurors they deemed unfit, and the fact they did not strike the juror from Truth Social suggests they believe the juror can be fair and impartial.
  • 📈 The trial is being closely followed, and the legal analysis will continue to cover its developments as they unfold.

Q & A

  • What is the significance of the first day of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan?

    -It marks the first time a former president of the United States has faced a criminal trial, setting a historic precedent in the American legal system.

  • What does the prosecution aim to accomplish during their opening statement in a trial?

    -The prosecution aims to highlight the incriminating evidence, address any weaknesses in their case by 'drawing the sting', and build credibility with the jurors to establish themselves as an honest broker of the facts and the law.

  • What is the difference between the legal payment for services and the alleged crime committed by Donald Trump?

    -Donald Trump has the right to pay for legal services, but the issue is that the payments in question were not for legal services. Instead, they were reimbursements for hush money payments to suppress damaging information during his presidential campaign, which is a violation of campaign finance laws and falsification of business records.

  • How did Michael Cohen's reimbursement of $130,000 evolve into a more significant figure?

    -Michael Cohen was reimbursed not only for the $130,000 he paid to Stormy Daniels but also an additional $20,000 to disguise the payment as income for legal services rendered, which was not the case.

  • What is the defense's argument regarding the nature of influencing an election?

    -The defense argues that there is nothing wrong with trying to influence an election, but this argument is challenged by the prosecution, which differentiates between legal forms of influencing an election and illegal activities such as campaign finance violations and falsification of business records.

  • Why did the defense attorney's use of the phrase 'use your common sense' stand out to the speakers?

    -The phrase stood out because it is a common tactic used by attorneys to encourage jurors to apply their own judgment and reasoning to the evidence presented. However, it was used in a context that seemed to downplay the seriousness of the charges against Donald Trump.

  • What is the significance of having two lawyers on the jury?

    -Having lawyers on the jury can be beneficial as they are expected to have a deeper understanding of the legal process and instructions. They can help keep other jurors focused on the evidence and the judge's instructions, potentially preventing speculation or deviation from the facts.

  • How did the news consumption habits of one of the jurors raise concerns?

    -Juror number two reportedly gets their news exclusively from Truth Social and Twitter, which could imply a potential bias or susceptibility to unverified information. This raised concerns about the juror's ability to be impartial and make decisions based solely on the evidence presented in court.

  • null

    -null

  • Why did the prosecution not strike the juror who gets news from Truth Social and Twitter?

    -The prosecution likely believed that the juror demonstrated enough understanding and commitment to being fair and impartial, despite their news sources. They may have assessed that the juror's other statements and responses were sufficient to satisfy their criteria for jury service.

  • What is the implication of Donald Trump falling asleep during his trial?

    -While it is not uncommon for individuals to fall asleep during trials, it is unusual for the defendant. It could suggest that Trump is either unconcerned about the proceedings or that the stress and pressure are taking a toll on him, potentially indicating the significance of the charges against him.

  • How does the speaker assess the defense's opening statement?

    -The speaker suggests that the defense's opening statement did not present concrete evidence to counter the prosecution's strong case. The defense's argument that there's nothing wrong with trying to influence an election was critiqued as it did not address the illegal methods alleged to have been used.

  • What is the importance of the opening statement in a trial?

    -The opening statement serves as a roadmap for the jury, outlining what the lawyers expect the evidence to prove. It sets the stage for the trial, providing the jury with a preliminary understanding of the case's direction and the key points that will be argued.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Opening Statements in Trump's Criminal Trial

The first paragraph discusses the commencement of Donald Trump's criminal trial in Manhattan, marking his first such trial. The hosts, Glenn and Brian, introduce themselves as the commentators for the trial and encourage viewers to subscribe for continuous coverage. They summarize the day's events, highlighting the prosecution's strong opening statement and the defense's lack of concrete counterarguments. The paragraph also explains the purpose of opening statements and the strategy of addressing potential weaknesses in one's case to build credibility with the jury.

05:01

💸 Trump's Reimbursement Scheme and Defense Strategy

The second paragraph delves into the specifics of the financial arrangement between Trump and his lawyer, Michael Cohen, regarding the payment to Stormy Daniels. It outlines how the payment was disguised as a legal fee and how it resulted in multiple falsifications of business records, a felony under New York law. The discussion also critiques Trump's defense attorney's argument about the legitimacy of influencing an election and the contrast between legal and illegal campaign tactics. Additionally, the paragraph touches upon Trump's courtroom behavior, specifically his sleeping during the trial, which the hosts interpret as a sign of the strain the process is putting on him.

10:02

🕰 The Weight of Trump's Criminal Trials

The third paragraph reflects on the historic nature of the trial as the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president. It mentions that this is one of four criminal trials that Trump is facing. The conversation ponders the psychological impact of the trials on Trump, speculating whether his ability to sleep during the trial is indicative of his mental state and the gravity with which he is对待 (treating) the charges against him. The paragraph also discusses the potential influence of jurors' backgrounds, particularly those who are lawyers, and how they might approach the evidence and judge's instructions.

15:03

👥 Juror Selection and the Role of Media Influence

The fourth paragraph focuses on the selection of jurors and the potential impact of their media consumption habits on their ability to be impartial. It raises concerns about a juror who gets news exclusively from platforms perceived as biased, such as Truth Social, and the challenge of discerning fact from fiction. The hosts debate the value of having lawyers on a jury, with one arguing that their legal understanding can be beneficial in keeping deliberations focused and grounded in the evidence. The paragraph concludes with a note of optimism that the prosecution's decision not to strike certain jurors indicates confidence in their ability to be fair and impartial.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Criminal trial

A criminal trial is a formal court proceeding where the accused is tried for alleged criminal offenses. It is a critical part of the justice system and ensures that individuals are not punished without a fair trial. In the context of the video, it refers to the first criminal trial of Donald Trump in Manhattan, which is a significant event as it involves a former president of the United States.

💡Prosecution

The prosecution refers to the legal team representing the government or the state in a criminal trial. Their role is to present evidence and argue the case against the defendant to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In the video, the prosecution's opening statement is described as strong and persuasive, indicating that they presented considerable evidence against Donald Trump.

💡Defense

The defense is the legal team representing the accused in a criminal trial. Their primary objective is to challenge the prosecution's case, provide alternative explanations, and raise doubts about the guilt of their client. The video mentions that the defense in Trump's trial did not seem to present concrete evidence to counter the prosecution's case.

💡Opening statement

An opening statement is the initial address made by both the prosecution and defense at the start of a trial. It outlines the legal and factual basis of their respective cases and sets the stage for the evidence that will be presented. In the video, the prosecution's opening statement is highlighted as being solid and persuasive, while the defense's is suggested to be lacking.

💡Michael Cohen

Michael Cohen is a lawyer and former personal attorney for Donald Trump. He is a key figure in the video as he is mentioned as a witness who will testify about certain incriminating evidence. Cohen has previously been involved in legal controversies related to Trump, including allegations of making payments to suppress damaging information.

💡Reasonable doubt

Reasonable doubt is a legal standard used in criminal trials to determine the defendant's guilt. It requires the jury to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty before they can return a guilty verdict. The video discusses how the prosecution aims to persuade the jury that there is no significant weakness in their case that would create reasonable doubt.

💡Falsification of business records

Falsification of business records refers to the act of intentionally making false entries or misrepresentations in official business documents. In the context of the video, it is mentioned as one of the criminal charges against Donald Trump, where he allegedly falsified records to disguise payments made to suppress damaging information.

💡Hush money payments

Hush money payments are sums of money paid to individuals to prevent them from publicly disclosing certain information, often of a sensitive or incriminating nature. The video discusses how Donald Trump is accused of making such payments to cover up damaging information during his 2016 presidential campaign.

💡Campaign finance violations

Campaign finance violations involve the breach of laws regulating the financing of political campaigns. These laws are designed to ensure transparency and prevent corruption. In the video, it is suggested that Donald Trump may have committed campaign finance violations by making payments to suppress information relevant to his candidacy.

💡Juror

A juror is a member of a jury, which is a group of people sworn to render a verdict in a trial based on the evidence presented. Jurors play a crucial role in the justice system as they determine the outcome of the case. The video discusses the selection of jurors for Trump's trial, including concerns about their ability to be impartial and their sources of news.

💡Truth Social

Truth Social is a social media platform launched by Donald Trump's Trump Media & Technology Group. It is mentioned in the video as one of the sources of news for one of the jurors selected for Trump's trial, which raises concerns about the potential for bias or lack of exposure to diverse perspectives.

Highlights

Donald Trump's first criminal trial in Manhattan has begun.

The prosecution opened strong, presenting considerable evidence against Trump.

The defense did not appear to offer concrete evidence to counter the prosecution's case.

The prosecution's opening statement was solid, persuasive, and highlighted the incriminating evidence.

The defense faces an uphill battle to convince jurors of reasonable doubt.

Opening statements serve as a roadmap for the jury, outlining what the lawyers expect the evidence to prove.

Prosecutors aim to highlight incriminating evidence, admit weaknesses, and build credibility with the jury.

Michael Cohen, a convicted felon, is a key witness, and his testimony is supported by corroborating evidence.

Trump's defense argues that paying to suppress damaging information is a form of election influence, which is a misrepresentation of legality.

The defense's use of 'common sense' is questioned, as it seems to downplay the illegality of falsifying business records.

Trump's presence in the courtroom, including instances of him falling asleep, is noted as unusual for a defendant.

The historic nature of the trial as the first criminal trial against a former U.S. president is emphasized.

The psychological impact of the trial on Trump is discussed, with speculation on whether his behavior indicates stress or indifference.

The presence of lawyers on the jury is debated, with some arguing they can help keep deliberations grounded in legal reasoning.

One juror's reliance on Truth Social and Twitter for news raises concerns about potential bias.

The prosecution's decision not to strike a juror who gets news from specific sources suggests confidence in their impartiality.

The trial continues to be covered, with updates and analysis provided by the hosts.

Transcripts

00:00

you're watching the legal breakdown so

00:01

we've got the first day of the actual

00:03

trial on the books for Donald Trump in

00:05

Manhattan this is his first criminal

00:06

trial so we're going to cover that right

00:08

now but first just for those watching

00:09

Glenn and I will be covering the

00:11

entirety of the Trump trial uh happening

00:13

right now in Manhattan so if you want to

00:14

follow along with our coverage which

00:16

will be brief and right to the point

00:18

please subscribe to both of our channels

00:19

I'll put the links on this screen and

00:21

also in the post description of this

00:22

video okay so Glenn day one is done what

00:25

did we learn from today you know what we

00:27

learned Brian is the prosecution open

00:30

strong as we've been predicting all

00:32

along the evidence against Donald Trump

00:35

is considerable I would go so far as to

00:38

call it mountainous it's very strong and

00:41

what we also learned is that the defense

00:43

um doesn't seem to have brought much to

00:47

the juror's attention that is concrete

00:50

that undercuts the quality the strength

00:53

or the quantity of the incriminating

00:56

evidence that Alvin Bragg and his team

00:58

of prosecutors have masked against

01:01

Donald Trump and we'll talk in a few

01:03

minutes about some of the highlights

01:05

maybe more accurately low lights of some

01:07

of what the defense opened on but what I

01:11

took away from reading all of the

01:13

accounts many of them coming out of the

01:15

courtroom in real time is it was a very

01:18

strong solid and persuasive opening

01:21

statement by the prosecution and it

01:24

looks like the defense has an uphill

01:26

climb if they're going to be able to

01:27

persuade the jurors that they're really

01:30

is some Reasonable Doubt some

01:32

significant weakness or shortfall in the

01:35

prosecution's case so was today

01:37

essentially opening statements that

01:39

would outline what uh what both the

01:41

prosecutors and the defense are going to

01:43

focus on moving forward yes opening

01:46

statements are in essence a roadmap that

01:48

the parties the lawyers give to the jury

01:51

regarding what they expect the evidence

01:53

to prove you know now when the

01:55

prosecutors open basically they try to

01:57

accomplish three things they obviously

02:00

highlight the incriminating evidence

02:02

they front the weaknesses in their case

02:05

we call that drawing The Sting the

02:08

reason we do that is because the last

02:10

thing any prosecutor ever wants to hear

02:12

a defense attorney open on is let me

02:16

tell you what the prosecution didn't

02:19

tell you Michael Cohen is a convicted

02:22

felon and a liar so that's why the

02:24

prosecution fronts that evidence but

02:27

then talks about all of the corbor a

02:30

that supports and affirms everything

02:34

Michael Cohen will testify about so we

02:37

draw the sting and then the last thing

02:39

the prosecutors do in their opening is

02:41

they want to build their credibility

02:43

with the jurors you want that jury to

02:45

look at you the prosecutor as the voice

02:48

of reason as an honest broker of the

02:51

facts and the law and I've given so many

02:53

opening statements uh Brian in my 30

02:55

years as a prosecutor it's funny because

02:58

you watch the faces of the jurors when

03:00

you begin to talk about the weaknesses

03:02

in your case and you can see the wheels

03:04

turning they're like wait a minute this

03:05

guy's trying to prove his case Beyond A

03:08

Reasonable Doubt but he's telling us

03:10

about the weaknesses what does it do it

03:12

gives the jurors a comfort level that

03:15

you're going to bring them the case The

03:16

Good the Bad and the Ugly warts and all

03:18

and you're going to explain why those

03:20

weaknesses are really not that

03:23

significant because you've got

03:25

corroboration and ultimately you know I

03:28

didn't pick as the prosec computer I

03:30

didn't pick Michael Cohen as a witness

03:32

you know who picked Michael Cohen as a

03:33

witness Donald Trump is co- his

03:35

co-conspirator when he entered into this

03:37

corrupt scheme to falsify business

03:40

records to cover up hush money payments

03:42

to gain unfair advantage in this uh in

03:45

the 2016 presidential election now Trump

03:49

has been going around saying that you

03:51

know this is outside of Court saying

03:53

that he paid Michael Cohen for legal

03:54

services and that he has uh the total

03:57

right to do that why is that a lie um

04:00

well first of all Donald Trump does have

04:03

a complete right to pay Michael Cohen

04:06

for Legal Services here's the problem he

04:08

wasn't paying him for Legal Services he

04:11

was reimbursing Michael Cohen because

04:14

Michael Cohen Donald Trump Alan

04:17

weisselberg the Chief Financial Officer

04:19

and David pecker you can't make that

04:21

name up who is the head of Ami American

04:25

Media Incorporated which runs the

04:27

national Inquirer tabloid they entered

04:30

into an agreement uh an agreement a

04:32

conspiracy a criminal agreement to try

04:35

to catch and kill stories pay to cover

04:38

up damaging information about Donald

04:40

Trump and interestingly also to run what

04:42

were false stories about Donald Trump's

04:45

political opponents remember how Ted

04:47

Cruz's dad was apparently in League with

04:50

the JFK assassin yes that was a product

04:53

of the national Inquirer um they entered

04:56

into this criminal agreement and as part

04:58

of the Criminal agreement the conspiracy

05:01

Michael Cohen paid stormmy Daniels

05:04

$130,000 out of his own funds and then

05:08

Donald Trump had to pay him back really

05:11

interesting part of the opening

05:13

statement today was that um part of this

05:17

Arrangement was that Michael Cohen got

05:19

reimbursed the

05:21

$130,000 but not just

05:24

$130,000 he agreed with Alan weiselberg

05:26

that they would Pat it they would make

05:28

it4 $20,000 why so they could uh

05:33

disguise what was reimbursement payments

05:36

and pretend that it was income for legal

05:39

services rendered which it absolutely

05:42

wasn't and they falsified business

05:44

records 34 times over each one being a

05:48

four-year felony under the laws of New

05:50

York so again to recap you ask doesn't

05:54

Donald Trump get to pay his lawyer for

05:56

business expenses and legal fees of

05:58

course he does but that is not what was

06:01

going on here now Trump's defense

06:03

attorney had a line that stuck out at me

06:05

um and I'm sure it's the same line that

06:07

stuck out at you and that line was

06:09

there's nothing wrong with trying to

06:10

influence an election it's called

06:12

democracy what was your reaction hearing

06:14

that well you know it depends on how you

06:17

Define influence an election if you

06:19

Define influence an election by knocking

06:22

on doors putting election campaign signs

06:25

in your yard and making stump speeches

06:28

as a candidate I'm with you nothing

06:30

wrong with that you're trying to

06:32

influence the election you're trying to

06:34

win or have your candidate win but you

06:36

know there really is something wrong

06:38

with violating the state laws of New

06:41

York to try to cover up the fact that

06:44

you are paying to suppress information

06:48

that is directly relevant to your

06:50

suitability to be a candidate

06:52

particularly a candidate for president

06:55

of the United States hide that from the

06:58

voters and then

07:00

cover it up by creating false business

07:03

records in violation of New York state

07:05

law you know that kind of influencing an

07:09

election actually constitutes a crime

07:12

Glen there was another line from Trump's

07:13

defense attorney that was also

07:15

interesting I'm going to read that uh

07:17

quote listen use your common sense we're

07:19

New Yorkers that's why we're here

07:21

wouldn't Common Sense suggest the polar

07:24

opposite that that a guy who clearly

07:26

wanted a hide damaging information from

07:27

the American people ahead of an imminent

07:29

election would then commit campaign

07:31

Finance violations and subsequent

07:33

falsification of business records to do

07:35

exactly that Brian that's a great catch

07:38

here's the thing I use a version of that

07:40

line in every single case I have ever

07:43

tried you know what I say I say ladies

07:46

and gentlemen the good news is as jurors

07:49

you don't check your common sense at the

07:51

door you bring it into the courtroom you

07:53

bring it into the jury box and you sure

07:55

bring it in to the deliberation room

07:58

when you are given this case to decide

08:00

and when you apply your common sense to

08:03

the evidence that you have seen

08:05

developed during the course of this

08:07

trial you already know the conclusion

08:10

that you're going to reach and that is

08:12

that Donald Trump committed these crimes

08:15

and that he needs to be held accountable

08:17

for his decision to commit these crimes

08:20

and Common Sense is one of the most

08:22

important tools you're going to have in

08:24

deciding this case and uh finally let's

08:27

cover this uh this was the fourth day

08:30

out of five that Donald Trump's been

08:31

sitting in this courtroom in Manhattan

08:33

that he's fallen asleep mid trial can I

08:36

get your thoughts on that you know first

08:38

of all In fairness lots of folks fall

08:40

asleep during criminal trials I've seen

08:42

it happen over and over again in my

08:43

career but but H how how many of those

08:46

people are engaged in a political

08:48

campaign where their principal attack

08:50

against their rival is that the other

08:52

guy is Sleepy yeah I mean sleepy Joe

08:55

Biden how about drowsy Don the defendant

08:57

that's really what we should be talking

08:59

talking about here but what I was going

09:00

to say is I've seen people fall asleep

09:02

in the jury box uh I've seen members of

09:05

the audience fall asleep I've even seen

09:07

a judge doze off every now and then and

09:09

the judge's law clerk would would give

09:11

the judge A little nudge under the bench

09:13

um what you usually don't see is the

09:16

defendant fall asleep that one is

09:19

unusual I've even seen an attorney or

09:21

two fall asleep during the course of the

09:23

trial day so um you know Donald Trump is

09:26

either you know completely unconcerned

09:28

with what's going on um but but I'm

09:31

guessing all of this is actually just

09:33

taking a toll some of the people who

09:35

were reporting from the courtroom said I

09:37

mean Trump looks so tired so Haggard so

09:41

old and uh he seems to be struggling to

09:45

stay awake and struggling to sort of um

09:48

behave appropriately in other ways that

09:50

I'm not going to go into but um I I

09:53

think Donald Trump uh it's all catching

09:55

up with him and it's not just his age

09:57

and it's not just a lack of sleep

09:59

because he's posting incessantly at 2

10:02

a.m. about the Witch Hunt um I think

10:04

this has got to be weighing on him

10:06

because Brian nobody should forget today

10:08

was historic because it was the first

10:11

opening statement ever in a criminal

10:12

trial against the former president of

10:15

the United States but this is only the

10:17

first of four criminal trials against a

10:20

former president of the United States so

10:23

you know you do have to wonder how much

10:25

one man can take when all of his crimes

10:30

have finally come home to roost Glen I

10:33

don't want to get too psychological here

10:34

but I I feel like for myself if I was in

10:37

Donald Trump's position I mean I don't

10:39

know if I would ever sleep much less

10:40

sleep in the courtroom where my fate is

10:43

being determined does it say anything

10:45

about the guilt or innocence of a

10:48

defendant when that person kind of is

10:51

able to fall asleep in mid- trial when

10:53

their own freedom is on the line yeah

10:55

when things weigh on our minds we

10:58

generally have a hard time sleeping um

11:01

when things weigh on our minds like

11:03

being falsely accused of a crime we

11:06

didn't commit you know I I don't know

11:08

that you could ever get any shut eye at

11:11

all you know there is this phenomenon

11:14

and um I I've heard police officers say

11:17

that um a defend a defendant who's being

11:19

interrogated who's been arrested for a

11:21

crime is in an interrogation room is

11:24

being interrogated and the detectives

11:26

take a break they walk out usually the

11:27

cameras continue to run because these

11:30

days we video all custodial

11:32

interrogations which is a good thing um

11:35

a guilty man will fall asleep every time

11:38

but on those occasions when somebody has

11:40

been arrested and it turns out that

11:42

person is innocent when they take a

11:43

break in the interrogation and they walk

11:45

out you can actually see somebody who

11:48

turns out to be innocent of what they're

11:50

being accused of virtually bouncing off

11:53

the interrogation room walls because

11:56

they are so wound up and Ang anxious

11:59

about the fact that they're in a

12:01

situation that they really don't deserve

12:04

to be in I don't know that it's a

12:06

perfect parallel between those anecdotes

12:09

and what we're seeing of Donald Trump

12:11

but I think there may be something to it

12:13

and that's obviously something that the

12:15

court staff and the attorneys would have

12:18

some mindfulness of but that isn't

12:20

something that the jury would understand

12:22

because these are all first timers in a

12:24

situation like this is that right well

12:25

but we have two lawyers on the jury and

12:28

I've heard so much discussion over the

12:30

last 48 hours or so from legal analysts

12:34

uh from trial lawyers included uh about

12:37

whether it's a good idea or a bad idea

12:39

to have lawyers on the jury I think most

12:43

criminal litigators are of the opinion

12:44

that they don't want lawyers on their

12:47

juries I had the opposite uh view when I

12:50

was a prosecutor I actually liked and

12:53

had lawyers on my juries routinely

12:56

because I didn't strike them I didn't

12:57

move to strike them and it was because I

13:00

actually got to talk to a number of them

13:02

after the trial had concluded in my

13:05

local prosecutions not my federal

13:07

prosecutions I did both and in federal

13:09

court you're not allowed to talk to the

13:10

jurors after the trial is over except

13:13

with express permission of the judge and

13:14

I had these lawyers SL jurors often tell

13:18

me the same thing you know Glenn there

13:19

were people in there that were really

13:21

not following the judge's legal

13:23

instructions that we are Duty bound to

13:24

follow and they would start sort of

13:27

wildly speculating and spinning out of

13:29

control about alternate theories that

13:31

were not based in the evidence or the

13:32

lack of evidence so what I did as a

13:34

lawyer who was abiding by the judges

13:37

instructions I would bring them back to

13:39

the judge's instructions I'd say let's

13:41

review the instructions the judge gave

13:43

us about how we are not to speculate

13:46

right that's not what Reasonable Doubt

13:48

is it's not a speculative or fanciful

13:51

doubt that is precisely the language of

13:54

the Reasonable Doubt instruction of law

13:56

that the judge gives the juries so I

13:58

came to believe that lawyers on juries

14:01

are generally a good thing well to that

14:04

point there was a list of all of the

14:07

news sources I believe it was the New

14:08

York Times I compiled a list of all of

14:10

the news sources where the jurors who'd

14:12

been selected for this trial get their

14:14

news and one of the jurors juror number

14:16

two was the only one who got their news

14:19

exclusively from truth social and from X

14:22

um so didn't exactly bode well for

14:25

somebody who's like open to to the truth

14:28

and that that part actually worried me

14:29

quite a bit there was also one jur jur

14:31

number four who got their news from zero

14:33

news sources so everyone's like hey good

14:35

on that person just living living your

14:37

best life and unencumbered by by having

14:39

to read any news source but for jur

14:42

number two who only got their news from

14:43

True social and from X or Twitter I I

14:46

was worried about that but but I'm

14:48

presuming that you're going to say that

14:50

this isn't really a worrisome moment for

14:53

you because you know to that exact point

14:55

there are lots of folks on the jury who

14:57

can recognize like you know uh um your

15:00

your your personal preferences or

15:02

affiliations or allegiances aside if

15:05

you're just going to focus on what the

15:06

evidence presents in this case that

15:07

these people will be able to look beyond

15:09

that yeah and and here are a couple of

15:11

thoughts about that juror I saw that as

15:13

well and it piqued my interest and all

15:15

things being equal I wouldn't put that

15:17

in the plus column for a sort of fair

15:20

impartial and informed juror who says

15:23

they get their news on Twitter or X and

15:26

Truth social but there are also a lot of

15:28

people who say look I watch MSNBC and

15:30

fox and there are things on Twitter and

15:32

on X that are from reputable news

15:36

organizations I post on Twitter I'm not

15:38

saying I'm a news organization but MSNBC

15:41

and CNN and the Wall Street Journal and

15:42

the New York Times and lots of other

15:44

Publications post on Twitter so you know

15:48

I don't want to project the best case

15:49

scenario here but somebody could say

15:51

yeah I look at all that stuff on X I

15:53

also look at truth social because who's

15:55

not interested in what Donald Trump is

15:57

posting um and I can discern fact from

16:00

fiction but here's the thing Brian just

16:02

because a juror says this is where I

16:05

generally go each day to see what's

16:07

going on in the world X and Truth social

16:11

that does not disqualify somebody um

16:13

from sitting fairly and impartially in

16:15

isolation as long as they can say look

16:18

regardless of how I absorb my news or

16:21

try to keep myself informed what I

16:23

pledge that I can do your honor is look

16:27

at the evidence in the case and make a

16:29

decision based only on the evidence that

16:32

is presented to us not based on whatever

16:35

is going on on X or truth social or on

16:39

Fox news or on MSNBC or CNN so you know

16:43

no one answer in isolation disqualifies

16:46

a juror so I'm hoping that the balance

16:49

of the answers that that particular

16:51

juror gave gave the prosecution a

16:54

comfort level that you know okay perhaps

16:56

not the ideal juror but they've other

16:59

said enough things that satisfy us that

17:01

they can be fair and impartial if

17:04

they're selected you know to serve on

17:05

the jury in this case right I'm kind of

17:07

leaning on the fact that these um that

17:09

these prosecutors had the ability to

17:11

preemptor strike any jurors that they

17:13

didn't think could sit and uh and and

17:16

you know give an impartial uh view of

17:18

this case and the fact that they didn't

17:20

strike this juror you know I'm going to

17:22

perhaps naively but just assume that

17:24

they that they knew what they were doing

17:25

by virtue of leaving that juror on the

17:27

jury so with that said we will continue

17:29

to cover the entirety of this trial as

17:30

it continues to play out for those

17:32

watching right now if you want to follow

17:33

along with the Trump trial that's

17:35

happening in Manhattan right now please

17:37

make sure to subscribe the links to both

17:38

of our channels are right here on this

17:39

screen I'm Brian terer Cohen and I'm

17:41

Glenn kersner you're watching the legal

17:43

breakdown

17:44

[Music]

Rate This

5.0 / 5 (0 votes)

Etiquetas relacionadas
Donald TrumpCriminal TrialManhattan CourtLegal AnalysisProsecution StrategyDefense TacticsElection InfluenceBusiness RecordsHush MoneyPolitical CampaignJuror BiasLegal Breakdown
¿Necesitas un resumen en español?