This could be wild

BMX Bandit said:

---

prosecution thinks they have about 1 hour of redirect with Cohen.

if the finish with the evidence on monday as trump's lawyer indicted he thinks is a possibility, then pre-charge conference (where the lawyers and judge talk about the instructions and questions given to the jury) will be at end of the day monday. each side has already submitted their proposed charge

the formal charge conference (where the formally make objections to the instructions and questions given to the jury) will happen tuesday morning, then they will give their closing arguments. don't know how much time they will each get, but mecrchan rightfully doesn't want them to be on different days.

this is not a rushed timeline, it is standard.

---

One hour? That's ambitious...unless they have a script already written and are rehearsing it with Cohen over the weekend. They really need to address that minute and half phone call to Keith Schiller the evening of October 24, 2016. His ultimate testimony was that he did not have a specific recollection of the call but was going off of the documents (cherry picked?) the prosecution showed him.

Going to be hard to walk that back without sounding like he's just making it up as he goes.

aggiehawg said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

prosecution thinks they have about 1 hour of redirect with Cohen.

if the finish with the evidence on monday as trump's lawyer indicted he thinks is a possibility, then pre-charge conference (where the lawyers and judge talk about the instructions and questions given to the jury) will be at end of the day monday. each side has already submitted their proposed charge

the formal charge conference (where the formally make objections to the instructions and questions given to the jury) will happen tuesday morning, then they will give their closing arguments. don't know how much time they will each get, but mecrchan rightfully doesn't want them to be on different days.

this is not a rushed timeline, it is standard.

---

One hour? That's ambitious...unless they have a script already written and are rehearsing it with Cohen over the weekend. They really need to address that minute and half phone call to Keith Schiller the evening of October 24, 2016. His ultimate testimony was that he did not have a specific recollection of the call but was going off of the documents (cherry picked?) the prosecution showed him.

Going to be hard to walk that back without sounding like he's just making it up as he goes.

---

Yes to a normal person.

Advantage to the prosecution because it may be as simple as reiterating "orange man bad" to this jury panel.

McCarthy:

Quote:

---

Also, while I don't know if Merchan has a different practice, the usual rule is that the party may not discuss the case with a witness it has called while that witness is on cross-examination. Hence, by not finishing his cross-examination yesterday, Blanche blocks prosecutors from using the weekend to alert Cohen to problems with his prior answers and to prepare him for redirect examination.

---

Quote:

---

As a witness, Trump would have to address the salacious Stormy Daniels testimony, which should not be in the case. Plus, Merchan ruled that, if Trump testifies, prosecutors may inform the jury that (a) Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in the recent civil-fraud case that he committed persistent fraud over many years, and (b) a federal jury found him liable for defaming E. Jean Carroll i.e., for making knowingly false statements in last year's sex-abuse case. (The fact that Trump is appealing these findings does not change the fact that they are findings made after a trial, and thus fair game on cross.)

By not testifying, Trump would keep these two damaging court verdicts out of the case. As for Stormy, Trump's lawyers will correctly argue to the jury that her graphic testimony was irrelevant to the real issues in the case namely, whether Trump, with fraudulent intent, caused his business records to be falsified, and whether such fraudulent intent included an intention to conceal a second crime.

---

Quote:

---

If Trump were to testify, that would add several days to the trial. Without his testimony, the defense case if there is one will likely be brief. So far, Merchan continues to rebuff Team Trump's request to call former FEC official Bradley Smith as an expert witness to explain why reimbursement by a political candidate for a supporter's (Cohen's) payment for a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) is not a campaign expenditure under federal law. Merchan is wrong on this, but there is little chance he will change his mind.

---

Quote:

---

Costello could testify about both what Cohen told him and about what he tried to tell Bragg's grand jury prior to the indictment of Trump: Costello says Bragg's office did not share with the grand jury the hundreds of pages of emails and other documents that, he maintains, back up his version of events.

Costello testified Wednesday before a House subcommittee and gave the heart of his account in a 20-minute Fox News interview with Bill Hemmer and Dana Perino Thursday morning.

If I were Trump's lawyers, I'd be very tempted to put him on the witness stand. On the other hand, there is no question that Blanche made Cohen's gargantuan credibility problems quite clear to the jury. Strategically, Team Trump may prefer to tell the jury in summation that there was no need to present any defense case because the prosecution's case is a joke that ought to be laughed out of court.

---

Quote:

---

If, as I suspect, there is little or no defense case, Merchan has alerted the lawyers to be ready to sum up for the jury on Tuesday. This is ambitious. The huge issue still to be decided in this case is: What will the judge instruct the jury about the law that must be applied to the evidence? In many criminal cases, this is so straightforward that the "charging conference" the court session at which the lawyers argue over what the judge's "jury charge" (i.e., instructions on the law) should be takes less than an hour, sometimes just a few minutes.

To the contrary, I have never seen a criminal case such as this one, in which the felony statute invoked gives such insufficient notice of what it is criminalizing, and the indictment utterly fails to explain what laws the defendant has allegedly broken.

Moreover, I have never seen a case in which a state prosecutor attempts to enforce federal law over which he has no enforcement jurisdiction and in which that prosecutor appears to be making up his own version of federal campaign-finance law, diverging markedly from interpretations followed by the two federal agencies with exclusive jurisdiction over that corpus (the Justice Department and the FEC).

Consequently, I believe the charging conference in this case is going to be lengthy and contentious. Of course, Merchan is the judge and if he is determined to bull his way through it, give Bragg the leeway he wants, and move briskly to summations, no one can stop him, at least not now an appeals court may correct him in a year or more, but if Merchan curtly denies defense objections to the legal instructions he decides to give the jury, there is no present remedy.

---

Quote:

---

In any event, the jury charge and summations would then take place Tuesday. (I prefer the jury charge after summations, as was the federal practice in the Southern District of New York in my years there. In some courts, the jury charge precedes summations. I don't yet know how Merchan does things.) I assume each side will want half a day to sum up, but that's not yet clear.

With the jury poised to deliberate, and perhaps even begin deliberations on Tuesday, it is highly unlikely that Merchan will take his customary off-day from the trial on Wednesday. It appears to be his goal to get a verdict by the end of next week before Memorial Day weekend.

It is not clear at this point whether the jury will be sequestered during deliberations to shield it from outside influences. Merchan has discretion to order sequestration, and sequestered juries unsurprisingly tend to reach verdicts more rapidly than non-sequestered ones. That aside, if the jury is deliberating by Wednesday, the holiday weekend will be a strong incentive to decide the case by or before Friday.

Of course, as with everything in this case, nothing is certain.

---

LINK

I like McCarthy a lot but if need any sign he's not a criminal defense lawyer, it's this:

Quote:

---

If I were Trump's lawyers, I'd be very tempted to put him on the witness stand.

---

Team Trump has no such temptation. I sure you that. State has not proven its case. Why put the defendant on the stand? Only bad can come from it in this situation! EDIT: I completely misread that! Disregard!

Quote:

---

it is highly unlikely that Merchan will take his customary off-day from the trial on Wednesday

---

It's already confirmed no trial Wednesday as aggiehawg pointed out.

Im Gipper said:

---

I like McCarthy a lot but if need any sign he's not a criminal defense lawyer, it's this:

Quote:

---

If I were Trump's lawyers, I'd be very tempted to put him on the witness stand.

---

Team Trump has no such temptation. I sure you that. State has not proven its case. Why put the defendant on the stand? Only bad can come from it in this situation!

Quote:

---

it is highly unlikely that Merchan will take his customary off-day from the trial on Wednesday

---

It's already confirmed no trial Wednesday as aggiehawg pointed out.

---

First off McCarthy was a career prosecutor in SDNY, not a crim defense lawyer.

But his comment about interruprting the jury during deliberation, especially with a long holiday weekend coming up does raise a potential question. Merchan's deputies and bailiffs probably have some sense of where the jury is heading after four weeks of trial. Quick conviction in a matter of a few hours? Or protracted with the possibility of a hung jury?

Quote:

---

The judge now infamous for his role in the politically charged New York case against Donald Trump reportedly received an official "caution" for his ethics violation.

---

Quote:

---

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton cited the as-yet-unreleased caution letter to Judge Juan Merchan as proof of the latter's ethical failure. While a sitting judge, Merchan reportedly donated to Democrats, including Donald Trump's current Democrat presidential opponent Joe Biden. The latest news is that Merchan was officially cautioned over this ethics failure.
Fitton had originally posted back on May 6, 2023, "Judges are prohibited under ethics rules from donating to political campaigns and organizations. Accordingly, there are legitimate concerns about Judge Merchan's reported political contributions while a sitting judge to Biden and Democratic causes." Merchan is a dedicated Democrat, it would seem, indicating political bias in the trial of GOP frontrunner Trump.
On May 18, citing Reuters, Fitton further posted on Twitter/X, "UPDATE Judicial Conduct Commission Vindicates Trump: The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed an ethics complaint with a 'caution' to Judge Merchan over his donations to the Biden campaign and other Democratic causes."

---

LINK

Quote:

---

First off McCarthy was a career prosecutor in SDNY, not a crim defense lawyer.

---

Im well aware. Hence my comment

Quote:

---

But his comment about interruprting the jury during deliberation, especially with a long holiday weekend coming up does raise a potential question. Merchan's deputies and bailiffs probably have some sense of where the jury is heading after four weeks of trial. Quick conviction in a matter of a few hours? Or protracted with the possibility of a hung jury?

---

Dont forget, they leave at 1 on Thursday. A juror has an appointment. I can't imagine a verdict before Memorial Day, but strsvger things have happened!

Quote:

---

Dont forget, they leave at 1 on Thursday. A juror has an appointment. I can't imagine a verdict before Memorial Day, but strsvger things have happened!

---

A juror or an alternate has the appointment? I was unclear on that.

Im Gipper said:

---

I like McCarthy a lot but if need any sign he's not a criminal defense lawyer, it's this:

Quote:

---

If I were Trump's lawyers, I'd be very tempted to put him on the witness stand.

---

Team Trump has no such temptation. I sure you that. State has not proven its case. Why put the defendant on the stand? Only bad can come from it in this situation!

Quote:

---

it is highly unlikely that Merchan will take his customary off-day from the trial on Wednesday

---

It's already confirmed no trial Wednesday as aggiehawg pointed out.

---

Mc Carthy was talking about putting Costello on the stand not Trump.

Whoops!!

You are right! Brain fart!

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Dont forget, they leave at 1 on Thursday. A juror has an appointment. I can't imagine a verdict before Memorial Day, but strsvger things have happened!

---

A juror or an alternate has the appointment? I was unclear on that.

---

I think it's an alternate.

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Dont forget, they leave at 1 on Thursday. A juror has an appointment. I can't imagine a verdict before Memorial Day, but strsvger things have happened!

---

A juror or an alternate has the appointment? I was unclear on that.

---

I think it's an alternate.

---

That is what I intially thought too since Merchan said something about releasing the alternates on Thursday.

aggiehawg said:

---

SwigAg11 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Dont forget, they leave at 1 on Thursday. A juror has an appointment. I can't imagine a verdict before Memorial Day, but strsvger things have happened!

---

A juror or an alternate has the appointment? I was unclear on that.

---

I think it's an alternate.

---

That is what I intially thought too since Merchan said something about releasing the alternates on Thursday.

---

If they release the alternates and something happens during deliberations, then I guess they can be called back in if needed?

Quote:

---

If they release the alternates and something happens during deliberations, then I guess they can be called back in if needed?

---

If they do, they will have to start over on deliberations.

Things that make you go hmmm……..Stormy and her "haunted" doll

👀Stormy Daniels talking about her haunted doll named “Susan”.👶👻

🤣🤣🤣☠️ pic.twitter.com/6t2jIlmXVj

— Jenna Fredo (@LynkLuv) May 17, 2024

Cross posted from political tweet thread.

But nothing will happen. Crickets from the MSM.

Quote:

---

If they release the alternates and something happens during deliberations, then I guess they can be called back in if needed?

---

Under New York law, trump wouid have to consent to the replacement. If he doesn't, mistrial.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

If they release the alternates and something happens during deliberations, then I guess they can be called back in if needed?

---

Under New York law, trump wouid have to consent to the replacement. If he doesn't, mistrial.

---

There are six alternates. Does he have to refuse all six? That's a quirky law, BTW.

nortex97 said:

---

A different article. Amazing corruption of our judicial/political/legal systems.

---

Wasn't this issue at the heart of MTG's query in the Congressional hearing, when AOC, et al erupted in chaos?
Legitimate question BTW.

I think so, but MTG climbed willingly into the mud pit with them, proverbially.

Quote:

---

Wasn't this issue at the heart of MTG's query in the Congressional hearing, when AOC, et al erupted in chaos?

Legitimate question BTW.

---

It was....

Democrats through Garland are using the DOJ and the legal system to go after political opponents to keep democrats in power. This is all about power and cannot exist if not propped up by money/bribes. Who is coordinating and paying for all of this?

If MTG would have connected the dots by stating this instead of the "fake eyelash" rebuttal it would have been better (IMO), but wouldn't have been the "gotcha" soundbite. I guess it wouldn't matter with the lack of a free, unbiased press.

Uhmm, folks? I have to go in for more tests. I'll mayber be late tomorrow.

Sorry. Can't help it.

Good NYPost article/editorial on this **** show of a trial.

Andrew McCarthy also has a summation from Friday of the status.

Quote:

---

If, as I suspect, there is little or no defense case, Merchan has alerted the lawyers to be ready to sum up for the jury on Tuesday. This is ambitious. The huge issue still to be decided in this case is: What will the judge instruct the jury about the law that must be applied to the evidence? In many criminal cases, this is so straightforward that the "charging conference" the court session at which the lawyers argue over what the judge's "jury charge" (i.e., instructions on the law) should be takes less than an hour, sometimes just a few minutes.

To the contrary, I have never seen a criminal case such as this one, in which the felony statute invoked gives such insufficient notice of what it is criminalizing, and the indictment utterly fails to explain what laws the defendant has allegedly broken. Moreover, I have never seen a case in which a state prosecutor attempts to enforce federal law over which he has no enforcement jurisdiction and in which that prosecutor appears to be making up his own version of federal campaign-finance law, diverging markedly from interpretations followed by the two federal agencies with exclusive jurisdiction over that corpus (the Justice Department and the FEC).

Consequently, I believe the charging conference in this case is going to be lengthy and contentious. Of course, Merchan is the judge and if he is determined to bull his way through it, give Bragg the leeway he wants, and move briskly to summations, no one can stop him, at least not now an appeals court may correct him in a year or more, but if Merchan curtly denies defense objections to the legal instructions he decides to give the jury, there is no present remedy.

In any event, the jury charge and summations would then take place Tuesday. (I prefer the jury charge after summations, as was the federal practice in the Southern District of New York in my years there. In some courts, the jury charge precedes summations. I don't yet know how Merchan does things.) I assume each side will want half a day to sum up, but that's not yet clear.

With the jury poised to deliberate, and perhaps even begin deliberations on Tuesday, it is highly unlikely that Merchan will take his customary off-day from the trial on Wednesday. It appears to be his goal to get a verdict by the end of next week before Memorial Day weekend. It is not clear at this point whether the jury will be sequestered during deliberations to shield it from outside influences. Merchan has discretion to order sequestration, and sequestered juries unsurprisingly tend to reach verdicts more rapidly than non-sequestered ones. That aside, if the jury is deliberating by Wednesday, the holiday weekend will be a strong incentive to decide the case by or before Friday.

---

To think this could plausibly be all over by the end of the week is somehow surprising, but would be a relief. Onward to the Hunter Biden trials! (Yeah, yeah, we all know that won't happen.)

To clarify some of McCarthy's statements, Merchan tried to see if the jury could work this Wednesday, but several jurors had issues with it (most likely scheduled routine appointments after being told they had Wednesdays off).

nortex97 said:

---

I think so, but MTG climbed willingly into the mud pit with them, proverbially.

---

Belly flopped. Typical with her, have the chance to pin them in the corner and instead go straight to bimbo mode.

Made it! Breezed right through early this morning. catching up with the dsicussions before the jury comes in.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he expects closing arguments will be next Tuesday.
"It's become apparent that we're not going to be able to sum up tomorrow," he says.
"It was either have a long break now or have a long break then, and unfortunately, the calendar is what it is," Merchan says.

---

Quote:

---

Lawyers for both sides are beginning today's court proceedings by debating about an email from Robert Costello's associate to Michael Cohen after Cohen's first meeting with Costello.
Prosecutors are objecting to introducing it into evidence.
Trump attorney Todd Blanche says the email that speaks positively about Cohen's first meeting with Costello impeaches Cohen's testimony that he didn't like Costello after their first meeting and didn't want to retain him.
Prosecutor Susan Hoffinger says "this doesn't disclose what's in Michael Cohen's mind" because it's an opinion from Jeffrey Citron about that initial meeting, not Cohen.
More context: Costello once advised Cohen, but Cohen never formally retained him. The jury in this case has already seen emails from Costello offering to serve as a backchannel to Trump after Cohen's home and office were searched by the FBI.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan says he will not allow the email into evidence because it doesn't say anything about Michael Cohen's state of mind.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is moving on to discussions regarding an expert witness.

Trump has been sitting back in his chair with his eyes closed throughout much of the debate about evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's defense team has still not made a final decision over whether to call Robert Costello to testify once the prosecution rests its case, two people familiar with the matter told CNN.
After Costello testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week and disputed Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen's testimony, it became an open conversation about whether to call him. But there has been a divide inside Trump's orbit over whether it would be worth doing so, given it could also further prolong the trial.
Costello once advised Cohen, but Cohen never formally retained him. The jury in this case has seen emails from Costello offering to serve as a backchannel to Trump after Cohen's home and office were searched by the FBI. On April 21, Costello wrote to Cohen: "I just spoke to Rudy Giuliani and told him I was on your team. Rudy was thrilled and said this could not be a better situation for the President or you.
Costello later told Cohen to sleep well given he had "friends in high places."
Sources told CNN's Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes last week a decision would likely not be made until Cohen's testimony wraps.
Costello testified before the grand jury before Trump was ultimately indicted in New York.

---

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan said that allowing a Federal Election Commission (FEC) expert to testify on the additional subjects that Donald Trump's lawyers are seeking would lead to a "battle of the experts," which would "only confuse and not assist" the jury.

Quote:

---

"The jury would hear legal instructions from three different people. As Mr. Bove eluded to there is no question this would result in a battle of the experts and would only serve to confuse and not assist he jury," the judge said.

---

Merchan also cited Manhattan federal Judge Lewis Kaplan's ruling barring this same expert from testifying to similar topics at the Sam Bankman-Fried trial.
"I direct you back to page three of my decision," Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expendi

---

That's BS.

Quote:

---

Donald Trump briefly leaned forward and shook his head as Judge Juan Merchan read his ruling on the expert witness. Trump's hands were crossed and he looked upset.

As defense attorney Emil Bove argued his points, Trump looked up to watch Bove.

---

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Emil Bove argued that the information the defense wants to get into the record through their campaign finance expert is "absolutely critical to the jury understanding the government's allegations in this case."

Bove also said, "We're restricted in what Mr. Smith can say and frankly Mr. Smith reading the text of those statutory definitions is not going to help the jury grapple with the issues that these charges present."

---

Quote:

---

Defense attorney Emil Bove is asking Judge Juan Merchan if he can give a sense of how he plans to instruct the jury on the campaign finance issues they want the expert witness to testify to.
Merchan says, "you must remember the people are not required to prove these offenses beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore that reduces the need or the burden to define every term or every phrase."
The judge says he doesn't see how the expert witness can testify to the issues without invoking the law and creating the issues Merchan has already detailed.

---

Quote:

---

Trump attorney Emil Bove said he'd like to elicit from the expert witness a definition "for the purpose of influencing the election," as it pertains to several campaign finance terms like "expenditure."

Judge Juan Merchan's ruling presently does not allow them to touch on a definition of influencing the election if the expert testifies.

---

CNN live blog is HERE

Quote:

---

"You've known for months what my position would be" based on his pretrial rulings on this issue months ago, Judge Juan Merchan told Donald Trump's attorneys.
Trump attorney Emil Bove jumped to interrupt him, and Merchan said smiling "just relax."
Bove crossed his hands across his chest apologetically and smiled back at the judge as Merchan continued speaking.
"I'm going to be consistent with my earlier rulings," Merchan said.
Merchan now tells Bove, "make me an offer of proof as to what he would say in response and I'll be in a better position to determine if it's an appropriate response or not. "
Prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said, "As the court has just said the judge will and should charge on appropriate legal definitions. The defense is not entitled to have an expert front-end that process."

---

Do we know at this point if Bragg turned over to the defense all of the evidence that Costello provided them? Listening to Costello interviews, a lot of it sounds very exculpatory.

Highly dount he would.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan has called for witness Michael Cohen.

As Cohen walked past Trump's table, Trump's head turned to look at him. It didn't look like they made eye contact.

---

Merchant should have just said "I'm not going to allow Trump to defend himself." The irony of some of his statements…

Fascist.