aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So is Robert Costello going to testify in the Trump case? Or was this one of the witnesses that the judge denied being subpoenaed? (My brain can't keep up and I haven't able to find it).

---

No idea. I do know that as part of the grand jury hearings prior to this indictment that Costello testified because Cohen had waived his attorney client privilege.

Costello's testimony would likely fall under a collateral attack on Cohen's truthfulness and that has restrictions, meaning Merchan could disallow his testimony under that.

But if Blanche asks Cohen questions about the time period wherein Costello was his attorney and Cohen lies about what he told Costello? Then it is less of a collateral attack. Merchan could still disallow it but that makes it harder.

Further, Blanche should ask Cohen about how Lanny Davis became his counsel, when who suggested it, etc. Cohen's story flipped when Lanny (a Clinton crony) became his lawyer.

ETA: Rule 608

---

So a judge could disallow a witness testifying in the trial even though that witness testified before the grand jury?

Also, where's the line between a rebuttal witness who is being called to rebut the testimony of the prosecution's star witness and a "collateral attack" witness? I thought the defense (and prosecution) had the right to call a witness for the sole purpose of rebutting the testimony of another witness?

If the judge doesn't allow Costello to testify, would that not be another major justification for the appeals court to overturn (not that there hasn't been an extraordinary number already)?

Forgive this lay person for asking all of these questions. I've just never heard the term collateral attack before when it comes to legal proceedings, and I'm just confused on the rules governing rebuttal testimonies.

I never said that the defense would not call Costello. I said I didn't know what they were going to do in reference to whether they even present a defense or not.

If they do present a defense, Bradley Smith (former FEC head) and Bob Costello would top my list but his team has their strategy. We'll see at least a portion of what that may be tomorrow.

But bottomline is the question of whether Merchan will allow it, just like always. The only person Merchan cannot deny the opportunity to testify is Trump, himself. As the defendant, Trump has the constitutional right to take the stand in his own defense. Merchan cannot stop that.

That is not to say I think Trump should take the stand, I do not as I do not see the need here since the case is so weak and full of holes.

aggiehawg said:

---

I never said that the defense would not call Costello. I said I didn't know what they were going to do in reference to whether they even present a defense or not.

If they do present a defense, Bradley Smith (former FEC head) and Bob Costello would top my list but his team has their strategy. We'll see at least a portion of what that may be tomorrow.

But bottomline is the question of whether Merchan will allow it, just like always. The only person Merchan cannot deny the opportunity to testify is Trump, himself. As the defendant, Trump has the constitutional right to take the stand in his own defense. Merchan cannot stop that.

That is not to say I think Trump should take the stand, I do not as I do not see the need here since the case is so weak and full of holes.

---

Got it, thanks!

I guess I knew a judge could not allow a witness, but I never really thought just how far a judge could go with that.

Quote:

---

I guess I knew a judge could not allow a witness, but I never really thought just how far a judge could go with that.

---

Well for a judge, not giving a rip about being reversed on appeal, he's free to do whatever he wants, as we have seen. Remember, this is not Merchan's first rodeo with a Trump matter as he also presided over the tax fraud case involving perks for Weisselberg.

This is something I've been wondering about. If the jury comes back with guilty on only 1 aspect (either the bookkeeping or election laws), then those are only a misdemeanor on their own. Would that verdict then get tossed for being past the statue of limitations?

SwigAg11 said:

---

This is something I've been wondering about. If the jury comes back with guilty on only 1 aspect (either the bookkeeping or election laws), then those are only a misdemeanor on their own. Would that verdict then get tossed for being past the statue of limitations?

---

There are two parts to jury instructions, the instructions as to the law and then the verdict form. The verdict form corresponds to the counts and statutes contained within the indictment on which the judge decides sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to warrant submitting the question to the jury.

The misdemeanors are time barred and not lesser included offenses for the purposes of this indictment.

So to answer your question, the verdict form likely will not contain misdemeanor options for them.

Harriet for the win! 🏆 pic.twitter.com/nz6V84Zf1T

— Karli Bonne’ 🇺🇸 (@KarluskaP) May 15, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

I never said that the defense would not call Costello. I said I didn't know what they were going to do in reference to whether they even present a defense or not.

If they do present a defense, Bradley Smith (former FEC head) and Bob Costello would top my list but his team has their strategy. We'll see at least a portion of what that may be tomorrow.

But bottomline is the question of whether Merchan will allow it, just like always. The only person Merchan cannot deny the opportunity to testify is Trump, himself. As the defendant, Trump has the constitutional right to take the stand in his own defense. Merchan cannot stop that.

That is not to say I think Trump should take the stand, I do not as I do not see the need here since the case is so weak and full of holes.

---

A witness with
- direct knowledge of a testimony
- can rebutt a prosecution witness with direct knowledge

How could a judge refuse such testimony? And, if a witness is called to specifically rebut the direct testimony of a prosecution witness, I don't think that witness needs to be on the defenses initial list of potential witnesses.

Am I wrong on any of this?

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I never said that the defense would not call Costello. I said I didn't know what they were going to do in reference to whether they even present a defense or not.

If they do present a defense, Bradley Smith (former FEC head) and Bob Costello would top my list but his team has their strategy. We'll see at least a portion of what that may be tomorrow.

But bottomline is the question of whether Merchan will allow it, just like always. The only person Merchan cannot deny the opportunity to testify is Trump, himself. As the defendant, Trump has the constitutional right to take the stand in his own defense. Merchan cannot stop that.

That is not to say I think Trump should take the stand, I do not as I do not see the need here since the case is so weak and full of holes.

---

A witness with
- direct knowledge of a testimony
- can rebutt a prosecution witness with direct knowledge

How could a judge refuse such testimony? And, if a witness is called to specifically rebut the direct testimony of a prosecution witness, I don't think that witness needs to be on the defenses initial list of potential witnesses.

Am I wrong on any of this?

---

If I learned anything from "My Cousin Vinny", you are not wrong.

Just make sure your witness is an expert in general automotive knowledge.

Tramp96 said:

---

Science Denier said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I never said that the defense would not call Costello. I said I didn't know what they were going to do in reference to whether they even present a defense or not.

If they do present a defense, Bradley Smith (former FEC head) and Bob Costello would top my list but his team has their strategy. We'll see at least a portion of what that may be tomorrow.

But bottomline is the question of whether Merchan will allow it, just like always. The only person Merchan cannot deny the opportunity to testify is Trump, himself. As the defendant, Trump has the constitutional right to take the stand in his own defense. Merchan cannot stop that.

That is not to say I think Trump should take the stand, I do not as I do not see the need here since the case is so weak and full of holes.

---

A witness with
- direct knowledge of a testimony
- can rebutt a prosecution witness with direct knowledge

How could a judge refuse such testimony? And, if a witness is called to specifically rebut the direct testimony of a prosecution witness, I don't think that witness needs to be on the defenses initial list of potential witnesses.

Am I wrong on any of this?

---

If I learned anything from "My Cousin Vinny", you are not wrong.

Just make sure your witness is an expert in general automotive knowledge.

---

My point is if a witness can directly rebut another testimony, I don't see how a judge can't deny that witness.

Quote:

---

How could a judge refuse such testimony?

---

His court. His rules.

Many judges do not wish to be reversed on appeal and generally follow the rules and a sense of fairness. Further they put their rationale for their rulings into the record in open court so an appellate court can follow their reasoning. That almost always involves citations to rules of evidence and other applicable case law, etc. precisely because they care that they are trying to get it right.

Merchan does not care that he will be reversed in the event of a conviction. Engeron didn't care either, nor Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll case.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

How could a judge refuse such testimony?

---

His court. His rules.

Many judges do not wish to be reversed on appeal and generally follow the rules and a sense of fairness. Further they put their rationale for their rulings into the record in open court so an appellate court can follow their reasoning. That almost always involves citations to rules of evidence and other applicable case law, etc. precisely because they care that they are trying to get it right.

Merchan does not care that he will be reversed in the event of a conviction. Engeron didn't care either, nor Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll case.

---

Makes one hope we will have some form of Nuremburg trials someday for judges who are this blatantly corrupt. Now before everyone gets in a hissy, I'm not saying execution or even imprisonment. Just disbarment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

How could a judge refuse such testimony?

---

His court. His rules.

Many judges do not wish to be reversed on appeal and generally follow the rules and a sense of fairness. Further they put their rationale for their rulings into the record in open court so an appellate court can follow their reasoning. That almost always involves citations to rules of evidence and other applicable case law, etc. precisely because they care that they are trying to get it right.

Merchan does not care that he will be reversed in the event of a conviction. Engeron didn't care either, nor Kaplan in the E. Jean Carroll case.

---

So there is no actual law that forces judges to follow some set of rules? Just whatever he wants?

Quote:

---

Makes one hope we will have some form of Nuremburg trials someday for judges who are this blatantly corrupt. Now before everyone gets in a hissy, I'm not saying execution or even imprisonment. Just disbarment.

---

State judges are usually more circumspect because they are elected. But Merchan is a Dem in Manhattan and thus feels electorally bullet proof.

Compared to federal judges with a lifetime appointment. There's an old joke about federal judges believing they are above God inside their courtrooms and have to answer to St. Peter at the Golden Gate for that.

Quote:

---

Compared to federal judges with a lifetime appointment. There's an old joke about federal judges believing they are above God inside their courtrooms and have to answer to St. Peter at the Golden Gate for that.

---

Truer words never spoken.

Hawg, I've got some names you should recognize. I knew Bobby Baldock and Paul Kelly real well, both before and after they became judges. It was "interesting" to see how they changed after their transfiguration. Actually, in all honesty, they didn't change that much, at least in private. I was never in front of either, and probably never could be, so I have no idea what their courtroom demeanor was like.

Surprisingly (to everyone but himself), Kelly turned out to be the 2nd most cited judge on any of the Courts of Appeal, behind only Posner.

I also knew some of the other federal judges somewhat, but not as well. One of the advantages of a small state like NM is that it is easy to get to know the high and mighty.

Quote:

---

So there is no actual law that forces judges to follow some set of rules? Just whatever he wants?

---

No there are. Whether the judge follows them or not is another question. Appellate courts can rectify that. At least that is how our system is supposed to work. In rare occasions, an appellate court will be persuaded to issue a writ of mandamus to a lower court judge to follow the law. Remember the Michael Flynn case? Flynn's counsel had to go to the DC Circuit Court twice on mandamus to order Sullivan to dismiss the case after DOJ wanted the case to be dismissed. Sullivan ignored HIS superior court's instructions.

Sullivan is now on the retired but not retired list as he still gets assigned Jan 6th cases, who he throws in prison, denies their bonding out pending trial, etc.

Lifetime appointment, takes an impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to remove a federal judge.

Merchan might as well be a federal judge since he's secure by the stupidity of the voters in Manhattan.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

So there is no actual law that forces judges to follow some set of rules? Just whatever he wants?

---

No there are. Whether the judge follows them or not is another question. Appellate courts can rectify that. At least that is how our system is supposed to work. In rare occasions, an appellate court will be persuaded to issue a writ of mandamus to a lower court judge to follow the law. Remember the Michael Flynn case? Flynn's counsel had to go to the DC Circuit Court twice on mandamus to order Sullivan to dismiss the case after DOJ wanted the case to be dismissed. Sullivan ignored HIS superior court's instructions.

Sullivan is now on the retired but not retired list as he still gets assigned Jan 6th cases, who he throws in prison, denies their bonding out pending trial, etc.

Lifetime appointment, takes an impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate to remove a federal judge.

Merchan might as well be a federal judge since he's secure by the stupidity of the voters in Manhattan.

---

Chances this asswipe gets impeached for gross ignorance of the law? Yea, I'm sure that's not worded right.

SwigAg11 said:

---

This is something I've been wondering about. If the jury comes back with guilty on only 1 aspect (either the bookkeeping or election laws), then those are only a misdemeanor on their own. Would that verdict then get tossed for being past the statue of limitations?

---

He's not charged with those so no, there isn't a statute of limitations issue as there are no charges to violate the statute.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

This is something I've been wondering about. If the jury comes back with guilty on only 1 aspect (either the bookkeeping or election laws), then those are only a misdemeanor on their own. Would that verdict then get tossed for being past the statue of limitations?

---

There are two parts to jury instructions, the instructions as to the law and then the verdict form. The verdict form corresponds to the counts and statutes contained within the indictment on which the judge decides sufficient evidence was adduced at trial to warrant submitting the question to the jury.

The misdemeanors are time barred and not lesser included offenses for the purposes of this indictment.

So to answer your question, the verdict form likely will not contain misdemeanor options for them.

---

He's not charged with them so of course the verdict form will not have misdemeanor options for them

Quote:

---

Chances this asswipe gets impeached for gross ignorance of the law? Yea, I'm sure that's not worded right.

---

Zero. He is not a federal judge.

The NY state agency in charge of judicial conduct may sanction him but I don't think they can actually remove him. The voters have to do that and they won't.

This is a great episode

Especially Jim Trusty's testimony

https://www.youtube.com/live/wnKWo1rZbMM

COSTELLO: The fact that Judge Merchan had all of these cases and btw, when he finished with Trump case, Steve Bannon is next. Out of all the judges in NY county, somehow they keep coming up with the same judge. Coincidence?

JORDAN: No, I think it’s all coordinated. pic.twitter.com/WuDayz1SRD

— Grace Chong 🇺🇸 (@gc22gc) May 15, 2024

BMX Bandit said:

---

with some exceptions for spouse, experts, etc., the texas rule is "the witnesses on both sides shall be sworn and removed out of the courtroom to some place where they cannot hear the testimony as delivered by any other witness in the cause"

I have never had a case that got play-by-play media coverage (doubt anyone here has), so I've never had to think about if "cannot hear the testimony as delivered" would include reading a story or blog about it.

interesting question though. trump's lawyers may bring this up and move to exclude him from testifying.

---

looks like Trump's lawyers did not move to exclude Cohen on the basis of his violating the Rule (the rule number is 267 in civil cases, but for whatever reason every where around the country it simply known as "the rule")

I've been under the assumption that the defense is trying to obviously trip him up so badly on the cross that they will attempt to impeach him as a witness.

Hypothetically, if he is impeached, does all of his testimony get removed from the record? Would directed verdict be back on the table?

Foreverconservative said:

---

Anyone find it hilarious that Cohen is screaming attorney client privilege concerning Costello testifying before Congress and potentially testifying this trial when Cohen and the prosecution set any attorney client privilege on fire when it concerns Trump and Cohen.

---

I thought Cohen had already waived attorney client privilege with Costello?

he'd have to recant the testimony. example:

witness testifies the light was red.

on cross, he admits he told people previously it was green and that he was convicted in another case about lying regarding a stop sign.

but he maintains he's telling the truth now.


you can't get a directed verdict, but jury weighs his credibility. only if the witness said "nevermind, I was lying, the light was green" would it be enough to get a directed verdict

SwigAg11 said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Anyone find it hilarious that Cohen is screaming attorney client privilege concerning Costello testifying before Congress and potentially testifying this trial when Cohen and the prosecution set any attorney client privilege on fire when it concerns Trump and Cohen.

---

I thought Cohen had already waived attorney client privilege with Costello?

---

My exact point

Mornin', all.

CNN live blog is HERE

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is on the bench

---

None of these Robert Costello revelations are going to reach the courtroom, right?

Rockdoc said:

---

None of these Robert Costello revelations are going to reach the courtroom, right?

---

He's on FNC right now. Said he is not currently under subpoena by the defense. Further he thought the defense was waiting to make that decision after seeing what happens with Cohen today before making that decision on whether to call him or not. But he is willing to testify.

Quote:

---

Lawyers for both the defense and prosecution are at the bench speaking with Judge Juan Merchan.
Trump attorney Emil Bove walked back to the defense table to grab a notebook for the sidebar, while Trump is sitting at the defense table with his attorney, Susan Necheles.
Trump is watching Judge Merchan interact with his attorney Todd Blanche and prosecutor Susan Hoffinger both of whom have done the majority of the talking.

---

Probably need Cohen to make some direct, contrary statements and then they will have cause to call him to refute testimony. I assume they have to give the prosecution notice and they don't want to give them too much time to engineer their response.