aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

How does the defense prepare their closing without being able to decipher what the prosecution is actually going to argue in their closing?

---

Prepare for everything, every theory they think the prosecution will use. As they listen to the state's closing (they go first and last) the defense counsel then edits their summations accordingly.

That is how it usually works but with this judge were I defense counsel, I would be concerned that the state would then add the non-discussed theories in rebuttal. By rights they should not be allowed to do that but Merchan would probably allow it.

---

What happens if the prosecution in their rebuttal mention things that have heretofore been declared off limits even by Merchan? Can he stop them or do they just get to keep talking through the rest of the rebuttal?

So how they are claiming it should have been done this way:

Cohen secures an NDA from Stormy. Perfectly legal. He pays for it in October. Reports it by the end of the year as a campaign contribution, but it was reimbursed so Trump could have paid Cohen back like any other campaign expense. Trump didn't believe this was in any way related to the campaign so he paid for it personally and didn't have the campaign do it. His staff should have picked a more clear coding for the invoice on Trump's personal finances which really don't matter because they are personal.

So to get a conviction they have to make the jury believe that anything that could remotely benefit a campaign should be a campaign expense and an expense paid by a person that is miscoded is a crime. That pretty much opens up pandora's box.

Quote:

---

So to get a conviction they have to make the jury believe that anything that could remotely benefit a campaign should be a campaign expense and an expense paid by a person that is miscoded is a crime. That pretty much opens up pandora's box.

---

Which Brad Smith says is expressly false. But Merchan refused to allow his testimony to that fact.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Theres so much legal error baked into this trial that it will take months to brief if you've got one bite at the apple.

Even if it's immediately appealed the verdict will stand until after the election.

---

It's not gonna affect the election either way.

The wildest and most egregious case of all time.

Who will disagree?

Quote:

---

What happens if the prosecution in their rebuttal mention things that have heretofore been declared off limits even by Merchan? Can he stop them or do they just get to keep talking through the rest of the rebuttal?

---

The only thing the state has been denied by this judge is the actual Access Hollywood tape, although they have a transcript of it in evidence.Oh and the terms of Weisselberg's separation agreement with the Trump Org. State wanted to burden shift on the subject of Weisselberg did not appear at trial was because of that agreement with Trump. In a rare display of sanity, Merchan would not allow them to go that far.

So two missing witnesses that were referred to all throughout the trial were not called by the state, Weisselberg and Keith Schiller, Trump's longtime former bodyguard. It gets touchy when counsel refers to witnesses that the jury has not seen nor heard from in a closing argument trying to persuade them as to the reason for their absence. And by touchy I mean getting close to the mistrial arena.

Each side is not able to object during closing, correct?

Would the judge shut them down in closing if they discussed taboo items?

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

The wildest and most egregious case of all time.

Who will disagree?

---

I would say the Zachariah Anderson case or Chauvin's trial were both massive travesties as to how they were conducted. In both, the prosecutions were completely out of bounds while the defense was extremely hampered anytime they tried to complain to the judges about it.

TexAg1987 said:

---

Each side is not able to object during closing, correct?

Would the judge shut them down in closing if they discussed taboo items?

---

That is the general rule but in many of the trials I have watched these last several years, judges seem to allow those objections during both opening and closing arguments more and more often.

aggiehawg said:

---

TexAg1987 said:

---

Each side is not able to object during closing, correct?

Would the judge shut them down in closing if they discussed taboo items?

---

That is the general rule but in many of the trials I have watched these last several years, judges seem to allow those objections during both opening and closing arguments more and more often.

---

There is no such "rule" and the judge doesn't have to "allow" you to do it. You are absolutely allowed to object during opening and closing arguments. At most, a judge could "ask" you to wait to object once the other side ends their argument, but they also can't *make* you wait.

I think most lawyers will only do so in egregious situations since they get rebuttal, and/or don't want the jury to believe they are afraid of something or not given the other side a chance to speak their peace. They are also hard to win.

But you are absolutely allowed to do it and it would be malpractice not to in egregious situations.

I think the defense has to pounce on the first fact not in evidence. A clear one like conspiracy. Make the judge pick a side and make the prosecution pick their words carefully.

dallasiteinsa02 said:

---

I think the defense has to pounce on the first fact not in evidence. A clear one like conspiracy. Make the judge pick a side and make the prosecution pick their words carefully.

---

Judge would clear the courtroom and rage.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

A team of the very best writers could never have conceived of what we've seen play out over the past few years.

Would be incredulous. Some sort of TDS fan-fiction.

---

And the left is silent. People posting on this thread think this is all routine.

---

These people are partisan worms. Absolute hypocrites. Contrast what they are willing to accept in this farce versus the Hunter Biden case.

"There is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that Joe Biden knew what his son was up to!!!!!!"

"What about this whatsapp message that says 'my father is sitting right next to me and will hold a grudge.' And the response from Zhao that says 'we will cooperate with the FAMILY'?

"LOL, how do we aaaaaaaactually know that Joe was sitting there???? DEBOOOOOOOONKED!!! MAGA sucks, lol, Joe Biden 4 life!!!!!!!!"

Or my favorite line of liberal logic:


"But they produced checks showing Joe was given a bunch of unearned money."

"LOL, ever heard of a LOAN?"

"But there is no paper trail, receipt or anything else evidencing any type of loan agreement"

"LOL erskates, if you don't know how a loan works then I don't know what to tell you!'

"huh? what?"

"EXACTLY MAGA idiots, y'all have nothing, this is so desperate and pathetic, Hunter Biden rules! Go UKRAINE!!!!!!" Trans surgery for kids 4 LIFE!!!!!!!"

Trump repaid a loan from Stormy.

TexAg1987 said:

---

Trump repaid a loan from Stormy.

---

I like it! If Joe Biden doesn't need proof, then neither should Trump.

Opalka said:

---

Tony Franklins Other Shoe said:

---

Agzonfire said:

---

I haven't followed this closely at and am just stopping by this thread. Is the overall consensus that the prosecutions main goal isn't really to win, as much as to waste Trumps time and make him look bad?
It seems like everyone knows they have a weak case but can drag it out for a long time. There's no doubt that after the election all of his legal troubles will go away, one way or another.

---

I think that was about 90% of it. They also know their stacked jury gives them a 91.3% chance of guilty because, well, Trump did stuff because a documented serial liar says so. That was just icing on the turd cake because ANYWHERE else, this case was not brought to trial or would have lasted two days.

---

How can a jury be "stacked" when Trump's lawyers approved the selection?

---

You are exposing your ignorance of the jury selection process.

Stormy, Monica and Hillary will have altered the trajectory of American politics more than any other.

A hooker, a thot intern, and a nagging wife!

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!

The jury is going to come back with a guilty verdict thinking there were campaign violations because Merchan has allowed to law to be explained to the jury by Pecker and Cohen.

Casual Cynic said:

---

The jury is going to come back with a guilty verdict thinking there were campaign violations because Merchan has allowed to law to be explained to the jury by Pecker and Cohen.

---

The jury is coming back with a guilty verdict because none of them ever had any doubt that Trump was guilty of something ,somewhere.

Foreverconservative said:

---

Dummy just can't help herself and says the quiet part out loud

AOC says the quiet part out loud:

They stopped Trump from campaigning by putting him in a "legal version of an ankle bracelet" pic.twitter.com/qiNjbypQlC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 22, 2024

---

I actually think Trump missed a big opportunity here from a political. Since he's stuck in NY anyways, every night he should have picked out a different hole in the wall bar and gone in and bought everyone a round a drinks. Maybe find a bar to watch a Knicks game, Yankees game, or something. Just don't do any campaigning. After the trial, he's going to be campaigning 24/7. He could have used this as an opportunity to present himself as a man of the people for a bit. Politicians have separated themselves so much from regular people, I think if someone came out and did "non-political" stuff, they would win a ton of votes.

Gyles Marrett said:

---

ThunderCougarFalconBird said:

---

We all know the truth here which is that Merchan's job is to get a conviction regardless of how infirm it may be and subject to vacation on appeal.

---

Would love to see the records of calls/emails he's received from some people in powerful positions about "expectations" in this case.

---

Yes it would. Now consider that people have recorded those calls and any electronic communication between those parties. What would you do with those records and then consider what the bureaucracies would do.

Yes I am getting more cynical in my old age.

AustinAg2K said:

---

Foreverconservative said:

---

Dummy just can't help herself and says the quiet part out loud

AOC says the quiet part out loud:

They stopped Trump from campaigning by putting him in a "legal version of an ankle bracelet" pic.twitter.com/qiNjbypQlC

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) May 22, 2024

---

I actually think Trump missed a big opportunity here from a political. Since he's stuck in NY anyways, every night he should have picked out a different hole in the wall bar and gone in and bought everyone a round a drinks. Maybe find a bar to watch a Knicks game, Yankees game, or something. Just don't do any campaigning. After the trial, he's going to be campaigning 24/7. He could have used this as an opportunity to present himself as a man of the people for a bit. Politicians have separated themselves so much from regular people, I think if someone came out and did "non-political" stuff, they would win a ton of votes.

---

Just make sure the campaign pays the bill and codes it correctly.

Not sure there is really a way to sway 20 percent of New Yorkers not to vote for more communism this year.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I think it's a fair analysis of Costello's testimony, actually.

He's a witness, not a judge. He's not a party. He's not entitled to anything other than answering the questions the judge allows to be put to him.

Given both the restrictions on what the judge allowed him to get into and Costello's behavior, I think putting him on the stand was a net negative for the defense.

---

How Costello came across is all on the judge's horribad rulings. I think Merchan was trying to reach a Guinness World record in reversible decisions throughout the trial and this morning decided to add several more to his resume.

---

CNN's musings on what the jury thought may be completely wrong. The jury may perceive the heavy handiness of the judge negative towards the judge.
Although, in the end the jury is stacked against President Trump and in probably matters not how the jury perceived Costello or the judge, they will be inclined to convict. Here hoping there are at least a couple of jurors that are honest and ethical.

Quote:

---

The jury may perceive the heavy handiness of the judge negative towards the judge.

---

Juries often have the tendency to want to please the judge.

Especially in trials the length of this one.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I have seen references indicating that the first juror selected from the panel to be seated on the jury automatically is designated foreman?

---

I just googled this, and looks like that is correct!

BIZARRE!

---

My memory is a bit hazy, but on the federal jury I sat on, I think it was the same thing. Poor little frightened young gal was almost completely overwhelmed by it. There was no way she would have sought out that position.

Trump is holding a campaign rally in the South Bronx tomorrow evening starting at 6pm. The Dems are planning a counter event.

drcrinum said:

---

Trump is holding a campaign rally in the South Bronx tomorrow evening starting at 6pm. The Dems are planning a counter event.

---

Heard they called in a couple extra pallets of bricks.

drcrinum said:

---

Trump is holding a campaign rally in the South Bronx tomorrow evening starting at 6pm. The Dems are planning a counter event.

---

Were I to hazard a guess I would believe the cops in the Bronx will be more on Trump's side than those Dems in the counter event. This could be epic tomorrow.

Who (Def/Pros) gives its closing argument first?

whatthehey78 said:

---

Who (Def/Pros) gives its closing argument first?

---

State, then defense, then state on rebuttal.

Normally, when a judge sets a time limit on both sides in a criminal case, the state has to designate the time for initial closing and how much time for the rebuttal.

The state has the burden of proof so that's why they get two bites at the apple.

aggiehawg said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Who (Def/Pros) gives its closing argument first?

---

State, then defense, then state on rebuttal.

Normally, when a judge sets a time limit on both sides in a criminal case, the state has to designate the time for initial closing and how much time for the rebuttal.

The state has the burden of proof so that's why they get two bites at the apple.

---

Wouldn't the state in this case choose to go once and last? Or is that an option in NY?

If I were them, I would. It wouldn't give the defense any chance to respond to their closing.