Prosecutor issues CRUCIAL news on Trump jury

you're watching the legal breakdown so

we are just days away from the jury

deliberating in Donald Trump's New York

criminal trial so I really want to get

into what happens in that deliberation

room uh so Glenn and I are going to dive

into that since it's especially timely

right now but first just a reminder that

we're going to be doing daily breaking

coverage of this trial so if you want to

follow along with what happens please

make sure to subscribe all right so

Glenn let's say the defense and the

prosecutors both rest closing arguments

rebuttal final word from prosecutors

then the jury deliberates so talk about

what happens in that room because this

whole process feels like a like a bit of

a black hole for most of us and it's

designed to be a black hole very rarely

do we get to pierce the veil of jury

secrecy that's a term of art the

sanctity and the privacy of jury

deliberations can almost never be

violated there are a few exceptions

which we can talk about in a few minutes

I will say for all the years that I was

a prosecutor trying cases I never was

called for jury service I wish I had

been because I would have loved to have

been in that deliberation room just to

see how it generally works I get to walk

into the jury deliberation room after a

verdict is returned at least in local

court and DC not in federal court

different rules but and what I would

often see um made me feel a little bit

like it was a scene from the movies

because I'd walk in and there would be

these enormous sheets of paper from like

a large easel that is provided to the

jury for their use during deliberations

and they will have torn off the sheets

and they will have taped them to the

walls and they will have all sorts of

notations on those various sheets that

obviously aided and assisted them in

their deliberations and the the way I

would glean a little bit of insight into

how deliberations went is particularly

after it was a hung jury when they

couldn't unanimously agree on a verdict

either guilty or not guilty I would go

back to the deliberation room and I

would spend a long time talking with the

jurors about their perception of the

witnesses of the evidence of the defense

because what I had to do was determine

whether I wanted to retry the case or

perhaps just dismiss it and not take it

to a retrial and jurors would talk

openly about you know their perception

of the evidence what Witnesses they

credited what Witnesses they questioned

maybe they were a little less than

credible where the holes in the evidence

were in their estimation and maybe what

I could do to try to shore up or fill

those holes and I will tell you Brian

even when I was in there after uh jury

deliberations had concluded and a hung

jury was declared a mistrial was

declared by the judge it would still be

heated you know I would see jurors

arguing with one another continuing to

argue their po points whether in favor

of conviction or in favor of acquittal

so often I think it does get quite

heated um interestingly there would be

times that we'd be in the courtroom

while the jury was deliberating and we

would actually hear pounding on the

walls we never knew what was going on

there if somebody was making a point or

if they were you know fist to cuffs were

breaking out and they're throwing each

other up against the wall but you know

it does get quite heated so I think U

the first thing that jurors are told to

do when they retire to deliberate is to

select a four person somebody who can

sort of facilitate

the Civil exchange of ideas and

arguments and that's usually the first

task they have and after that the judge

tells the jurors you are free to

deliberate however you would like

there's a standard judge instruction

that instruction of the law that goes

something like you know you are

encouraged not to immediately take a

vote when you retire to deliberate

because you may become entrenched in

your position before you've ever had a

chance

to discuss you know your view of the

evidence so you're not required to wait

but you might want to wait so I do think

some jurors abide by that instruction I

think some juries take straw holes right

up front because maybe the case was

really clear one way or another and they

want to take a straw poll to see if they

can maybe move to a verdict very quickly

but you know in my experience jurors

like to take their time going through

all of the evidence that they've seen um

you know there's kind of any number of

rules of thumb like if a jury took a 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

you know I've tried as many cases as

most people um and I would say that's

probably probably a pretty good rule of

thumb you know with a trial like this

that lasted you know in Earnest I think

five or six weeks as far as the

presentation of evidence we could see

the jury take several days to go through

the evidence um but we could also see

them res it fairly quickly what I don't

think we're going to see Brian is an

acqu a not- guilty verdict why do I say

that you know I think the prosecution

presented a really compelling

Professional Case on the evidence so I

am hardpressed to see all 12 jurors

saying no crime here by Donald Trump or

the evidence failed to prove Donald

Trump's guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt

on all 34 charges I find that very

unlikely now a hung jury you can always

have a hung jury it only takes one you

know I still my assessment of the

evidence and if there's one thing I know

over my 30 years as a prosecutor it's

how to assess the quality and quantity

of evidence in a criminal case I think

the evidence is strong I think the case

is a common sense one because all of

these crimes were committed for the

benefit of Donald Trump indeed according

to Michael Cohen at the direction of

Donald Trump which makes complete sense

both as a matter of Common Sense and as

a matter of the evidence and the law so

um but you know every jury deliberates a

little bit differently and um we'll just

have to see when we hear anything from

the jury I do suspect the first thing

we'll hear from the jury Brian is not a

verdict it's likely to be a note because

the other thing in my experience that we

often see once juries go out to

deliberate is they come up with

questions and there are two kinds of

questions that we typically see from

juries one is one involves factual

questions questions of fact like you

know your honor we can't quite remember

what witness number seven said about

what time of day a particular thing

happened can we get some additional

clarification of that and I can tell you

Brian the judge will almost always

respond to that note by saying your

recollection of the evidence and the

facts control and I cannot provide you

any guidance on matters of fact but then

they may say you know what judge we have

a question about a legal principle like

you gave us a definition of what proof

Beyond A Reasonable Doubt means but we'd

like a little bit more clarification on

that because we're having some

disagreements that is something that the

judge will then turn to the parties

prosecutors and defense and say do you

all have any proposed answer to the

juror's question about maybe clarifying

a legal principle

and that's something that judges will do

frequently they'll try to be responsive

to the jury's legal questions but they

will never respond in substance to the

jury's factual questions Glenn I feel

like it's common knowledge that a

shorter deliberation means a higher

likelihood that the defendant is guilty

but is is there a cut off I guess in

this trial specifically where you feel

like a deliberation going past a certain

length of time suggests that a guilty

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

trying to give us some information to

arm us with information so that while

they're deliberating we have a better

idea of what to look out for if

something happens soon versus something

happens later yeah Brian you're

absolutely right in your assessment that

a quick verdict is typically a good

verdict for the prosecution um and there

there's a reason for that when you think

about what it takes to get a case to

trial you've had after the crime was

committed a police investigation then

the prosecutors will often get involved

in the investigation then we present all

the evidence to the grand jury and the

grand jury will make an assessment about

whether there's enough to indict the

defendant once the defendant is indicted

he or she will be presented in court and

there's all sorts of pre-trial

proceedings in the runup to the trial

where defendants will for example make

motions to dismiss for any number of

reasons make motions to suppress

evidence and the the case has been

vetted through lots of people and lots

of processes in the runup to trial and

by the time the the prosecution believes

that the right thing to do is to present

this case to 12 jurors you know they are

we they prosecutors are typically

feeling pretty confident and comfortable

that they have enough evidence to prove

guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt of

course prosecutors don't always win we

don't always convince the jury but I

think that's why the prevailing wisdom

and it has been my experience that a Qui

verdict is a good verdict why because

the jurors ended up seeing it the way a

whole bunch of other people both

professionals and lay people like Grand

jurors saw the evidence so a quick

verdict is typically a good verdict for

justice in my estimation for the

prosecution for the victims because it's

a guilty verdict however there is no

length of time that passes that you can

point to a day or a week or two weeks as

meaning that all hope is lost I do think

it is there's a point of diminishing

returns the longer a deliberation goes

the less likely you are to see a guilty

verdict with the following exception I

tried a six-month Rico Rico trial for

example and there were dozens and dozens

and dozens of criminal charges that had

to be resolved by the jury that's the

kind of thing where they could

deliberate for weeks and weeks and weeks

and we will hear nothing from them and

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

that doesn't mean they're unable to

unanimously resolve the charges it just

means they need a lot of time to pour

through the evidence this is not really

that kind of a case but 34 felony counts

and a trial that spanned five or six

weeks you know they could go a week and

we could hear nothing or they could

return a verdict within a day or two

okay well we will obviously be here

covering the enti of that as long as the

deliberation goes on so for those

watching right now if you want to follow

along with our coverage please make sure

to subscribe the links to both of our

channels are right here on the screen

highly recommend you subscribing Glenn

is fast on his way to a million so if

you're not yet subscribed to his Channel

please go ahead and my channel is up to

uh heading on its on its way to 3

million so if you're not subscribed to

this Channel Please Subscribe as well

I'm Brian tyer Cohen and I'm Glenn

kersner you're watching the legal

breakdown

[Music]