Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

Were I in Blanche's position vis a vis the restrictions on the scope of Smith's testimony, some histrionics would be in order to get it across to the jury that the state and the judge do not want the jury to hear from that very knowledgeable witness.

aggiehawg said:

---

Were I in Blanche's position vis a vis the restrictions on the scope of Smith's testimony, some histrionics would be in order to get it across to the jury that the state and the judge do not want the jury to hear from that very knowledgable witness.

---

Agreed. I would put him on the stand and make a big deal about his background and qualifications to get the jury interested in hearing what he has to say, then ask some very reasonable questions that should be in-bounds based on the testimony heard so far and let the jury see the prosecution object and the judge sustain. Then point out subtly in your close that you were not allowed to present evidence from an expert to rebut what was said during the trial.

You are mistaken. I think this is a bogus case.

You outlined perfectly how he was destroyed. Let's end it and go home.

We are done here.

If things get too bad, what are the odds this judge declares a mistrial before the case goes to the jury?

Who does a mistrial help the most?

TexAg1987 said:

---

You are mistaken. I think this is a bogus case.

You outlined perfectly how he was destroyed. Let's end it and go home.

We are done here.

---

The judge should if he were not hopelessly corrupt. But he won't.

0.0%

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Everyone knows Trump isn't testifying, and the defense may only call a single witness. I don't think this a big deal... Plus, the judge has been there in the courtroom the whole time, I think he can see how this thing is going.

---

It is a very bad look however. The only words from the judge to criminal defense counsel should be how long do you need? Ballpark guess?

Don't discuss ending the evidentiary portion of the case while the state is still in their case in chief.

Couple that with Merchan's attitude towards proposed defense witnesses?

---

Again, SOMEBODY has to bring an ethics comlaint against Marchan when this thing is over.

What are the odds of that happening?

What is the remedy when there is a fatal legal defect in the prosecution's case and it gets sent to the jury anyway?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

If things get too bad, what are the odds this judge declares a mistrial before the case goes to the jury?

Who does a mistrial help the most?

---

Judge is going to hope against hope that the jury hates Trump enough to overlook all the issues involved. The point is to get a conviction before the election, whether it stands up to appellate review or not. In my mind, the mistrial helps the prosecution the most, because it gives them a chance at a do-over and leaves the threat of prosecution hanging over Trump's head. Jury not guilty verdict is the worst outcome for the DNC...I mean the prosecution.

What are the odds that we re-do this case and keep Trump off the campaign trail for a few more weeks?

Quote:

---

Agreed. I would put him on the stand and make a big deal about his background and qualifications to get the jury interested in hearing what he has to say, then ask some very reasonable questions that should be in-bounds based on the testimony heard so far and let the jury see the prosecution object and the judge sustain. Then point out subtly in your close that you were not allowed to present evidence from an expert to rebut what was said during the trial.

---

I wouldn't hit that on closing. What I would do would have my legal pad on the podium in view of the jury. After the sidebar, return to the podium, ask the judge for a moment, then run my finger down the page, subtly shaking my head, loudly flip over to the next page, repeat. Small sigh, "All right Mr. Smith, sorry for the delay..." and then ask a very basic question. And then pass the witness.

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

Agreed.

This case gets overturned on a fatal and obvious legal error then the judge gets a free pass on it. Won't matter in the slightest and he'll be hailed as a hero. They'll put up a bronze statue of him at Hofstra.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What are the odds that we re-do this case and keep Trump off the campaign trail for a few more weeks?

---

same odds as John Mellencamp ever winning an Oscar

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What is the remedy when there is a fatal legal defect in the prosecution's case and it gets sent to the jury anyway?

---

Same as always, appeal. And however long that takes.

aggiehawg said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What is the remedy when there is a fatal legal defect in the prosecution's case and it gets sent to the jury anyway?

---

Same as always, appeal. And however long that takes.

---

So the reality is, no matter-of law-question will go in Trump's favor and this case rests in the hands of 12-jurors pulled out of the most liberal county in the US; and two of which are NY lawyers.

The rest of what we might hear is just fluff and the jury will convict.

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

---

So?

Sometimes a criminal defense attorney has to take a figurative bullet for their client.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

---

For election purposes, I suppose the Dems would hate a mistrial. They want a conviction before the election.

Jabin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

---

For election purposes, I suppose the Dems would hate a mistrial. They want a conviction before the election.

---

A mistrial would be better than an acquittal for them, however.

TexAg1987 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

---

For election purposes, I suppose the Dems would hate a mistrial. They want a conviction before the election.

---

A mistrial would be better than an acquittal for them, however.

---

For a talking point...for a awhile. There is no way Bragg would want to retry this case. He simply cannot. He has no witnesses that are credible and support his case. Zero.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

What are the odds that we re-do this case and keep Trump off the campaign trail for a few more weeks?

---

Zero.

172-days until the US presidential election and we spitballing mistrial when the ability for half of America to vote for their preferred candidate hangs in the balance.

What a time to be alive!

New York love for Trump. Sept 2023.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

172-days until the US presidential election and we spitballing mistrial when the ability for half of America to vote for their preferred candidate hangs in the balance.

What a time to be alive!

---

But on the flipside, this scam trial really may have been a blessing in disguise. I find it particularly interesting that more and more african-americans are looking at what is happening to Trump and relating to it because they also feel the judicial system is unfair.

And someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his poll numbers have consistently improved while he's been stuck in this trial.

Tramp96 said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

172-days until the US presidential election and we spitballing mistrial when the ability for half of America to vote for their preferred candidate hangs in the balance.

What a time to be alive!

---

But on the flipside, this scam trial really may have been a blessing in disguise. I find it particularly interesting that more and more african-americans are looking at what is happening to Trump and relating to it because they also feel the judicial system is unfair.

And someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his poll numbers have consistently improved while he's been stuck in this trial.

---

If he's acquitted, I expect he would have a significant bump in the polls.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says parties should be prepared to give summations on Tuesday "if we do wrap up on Monday."
He says if the testimony concludes Monday, a charge conference would take place the same day.
A charge conference is held to discuss the instructions to be given to the jury.

---

Yuck. Sounds to me it is going to be one of those time crunch matters wherein still working on jury instruction briefings and closing statement overnight. That really sucks, BTW. All nighter.

Bu maybe Merchan will do the right thing on the jury instructions and both sides will be okay with them? Hope springs eternal but I give that a very slim chance given Merchan's prior judicial behavior during this trial.

---

Wait...is this for the end of the prosecution's case? Because, where is the DEFENSE case in that timeline.

I admit I has the confuse...

Quote:

---

And someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think his poll numbers have consistently improved while he's been stuck in this trial.

---

That massive rally he held across the river in New Jersey shows that. Even though not televised nor streamed, this trial is not playing well outside of NY and the DC Beltway.

Quote:

---

Wait...is this for the end of the prosecution's case? Because, where is the DEFENSE case in that timeline.

I admit I has the confuse...

---

The Trump lawyers said they may be finished with their case on Monday.

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Is the prosecution able to meet with Cohen to continue to prep him further or is it hands off now that he's on the stand?

---

They can but Blanche will ask Cohen about that when they reconvene on Monday.

---

If Cohen lies, will the Prosecution have to stand up and admit it?

---

No. Only reason the prosecution would do that is if they are so pissed off at Cohen that they have decided to pursue perjury charges against him. We all know that aint gonna happen.

---

Wait...so the prosecution could allow KNOWN false information to be stated and not have to notify the defense?

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

Implication there were two full pages of questions that the judge would not allow to be asked. But that's me.

---

Judge would rage, declare a mistrial and blame it on the defense.

---

For election purposes, I suppose the Dems would hate a mistrial. They want a conviction before the election.

---

A mistrial would be better than an acquittal for them, however.

---

For a talking point...for an awhile. There is no way Bragg would want to retry this case. He simply cannot. He has no witnesses that are credible and support his case. Zero.

---

No different than the situation before the trial started, and that didn't stop him.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I strongly dislike Trump and fully believe this case is a sham brought as purely partisan political lawfare. I think there are a whole lot of others holding this same view, and even quite a few on the left who recognize this for what it is, whether they will fully admit it or not.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

Wait...is this for the end of the prosecution's case? Because, where is the DEFENSE case in that timeline.

I admit I has the confuse...

---

The Trump lawyers said they may be finished with their case on Monday.

---

Ah...must have missed that...lots of information to digest.

DTP02 said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

At this point in the trial, for folks who have been following it closely (I've only casually kept up with it), what are the thoughts on Trump's chances for acquittal? Ya'll lean that way, too close to call, or lean the jury will convict?

Of course given this is being tried in New York, where Trump my understanding got less than 15% of the vote in 2020, that would seem to have the jury pool deck already stacked against him.

---

It's 50/50, same as before the case started. I've found the case very interesting so far, like following a live John Grisham book, but the case has never mattered here. As with anything Trump, all that matters is how much the people love/hate him.

---

I don't think this is true at all. I strongly dislike Trump and fully believe this case is a sham brought as purely partisan political lawfare. I think there are a whole lot of others holding this same view, and even quite a few on the left who recognize this for what it is, whether they will fully admit it or not.

---

I am with you. As one of the resident 'moderates' here, I dislike Trump but I am very skeptical this trial would be happening right now if Trump had decided not to run in 2024. This is a political sham as you said.

Here is the thing though, this election campaign strategy by the Dems to hang a felony conviction on Trump before the election…perhaps costing him some critical votes in the middle voter pool… 'might' very well work. But the GOP voters in the primary knew the Dems were going to play this card - the charges were on deck - and still went with Trump as the horse they wanted to ride, so it is what it is if he's not acquitted.