Quote:

---

Since one of the attorneys on the jury is reportedly a civil trial lawyer, do you think he will be thinking in those terms (especially after the biased judge's jury charge that we know is coming) rather than realizing the rules are different in a criminal trial?

---

In my experience, the burden of proof is so beaten into the jury that they understand if. If the lawyer on the jury uses preponderance of the evidence, its not on accident. He/she/ze would be knowingly violating the law.

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is going over AMI's non-prosecution agreement, noting that it was admitted to assess David Pecker's credibility and help provide context for surrounding evidence.
Steinglass says that Trump attorney Todd Blanche suggested that AMI agreed to the agreement because the company was in a rush to get another deal done as he questions Blanche's logic. Judge Juan Merchan overrules an objection to the comment.

Quote:

---

"Because they're trying to close some other deal they're going to admit to campaign finance violations? C'mon," Steinglass says.
"Pecker was willing to sacrifice AMI's bottom line in order to benefit Mr Trump's campaign. There's just no way to get away from this devastating fact."

---

Steinglass says the $150,000 paid to Karen McDougal in her agreement with AMI "is the antithesis of a normal legitimate press function."
"That is the definition of an unlawful corporate campaign contribution."
Remember: On April 25, Judge Juan Merchan read over his limiting instruction to the jury about the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) that prosecutors struck with the National Enquirer's parent company, American Media Inc.
Part of the agreement, shown in court, says the Southern District of New York will not criminally prosecute American Media Inc. for any crimes "related to its participation, between in or about August 2015 up to and including in or about October 2016, in making a contribution and expenditure aggregating $25,000 and more during the 2016 calendar year, to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States."

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is now turning to the September 2016 recording with Trump about Karen McDougal.
He's accusing the defense of "going to laughable lengths in a feeble attempt to cast doubt" on the evidence on Michael Cohen's phone.
"Here's a newsflash. People have used their phones," Steinglass says, asking jurors how many times they have gotten a new phone and done a factory reset.
Steinglass also pushes back on questions from Trump attorney Todd Blanche about why Rhona Graff, Trump's longtime assistant who was heard on the call, wasn't asked about it. "She wasn't even there for the important part of the conversation," he says.
Meanwhile, Manhattan DistrictAttorney Bragg is watching Steinglass try to explain Cohen's cell phone and the voice recording.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass plays the recorded September 2016 conversation between Trump and Michael Cohen about buying the rights to Karen McDougal's story about an alleged affair with Trump.
"This recording is nothing short of jaw dropping," Steinglass says.
"The recording shows the defendant's cavalier wiliness to hide this payoff. He knew how much AMI paid for the McDougal deal," the prosecutor says.
"You should take this recording to the back. You can play this many times and as loudly as you want to hear Mr. Trump say 150 on this tape. It's your decision what the tape says," he said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass says that the tape shows "a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election by reimbursing AMI for killing the (Karen) McDougal story. And that's why they're so desperate to discredit it."

---

Quote:

---

The court is taking a short afternoon break. The prosecution's closing argument will resume after the break.

---

Quote:

---

continuing his common refrain, "in service of this conspiracy to promote or prevent an election."

---

They will need to do that for each of the 34 counts.

That is the only way to fully protect your record on prosecution side.

How's it going Mr Steinglass, how much time left, Merchan asks.

We're about a third of the way through, Steinglass says, and the press lets out an exclamation of disbelief.

A third?! I hear a few reporters ask loudly, to no one in particular.

— Tyler McBrien (@TylerMcBrien) May 28, 2024

Merchant would not allow an expert in election law testify on the actual federal definition of what a campaign expenditure is makes no difference because the prosecution is making up his own federal campaign law. What a bizarrely display by the prosecution but even more how Merchan is just letting them run amok all over the place

jja79 said:

---

Isn't the purpose of the trial election interference?

---

are they going to indict the MSM now?

Quote:

---

As the afternoon break is about to begin, Judge Juan Merchan asks the prosecutor: "How's it going, Mr. Steinglass?"
He responds that he's "about a third of the way through."
For context: Steinglass is using a timeline graphic to take the jury through what prosecutors believe are the key moments in the conspiratorial schemes.
We're up to November 29 - December 7, 2016, when AMI modified Karen McDougal's agreement to let her respond to general media inquiries.

---

How do things play out once the prosecution is done? Will they just adjourn for the day, and come back tomorrow to start deliberations? Or will they do an initial vote or anything before adjourning?

Normally, I would think that it would help the prosecution to have the jury sit with their closing overnight before they start deliberations. However, with such a focus on Cohen, I feel like that's what they are really going to be left with. The other evidence, which the prosecution is trying to argue matters more, is going to get quickly forgotten as this moves to just, "Do I believe Cohen?"

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

Since one of the attorneys on the jury is reportedly a civil trial lawyer, do you think he will be thinking in those terms (especially after the biased judge's jury charge that we know is coming) rather than realizing the rules are different in a criminal trial?

---

In my experience, the burden of proof is so beaten into the jury that they understand if. If the lawyer on the jury uses preponderance of the evidence, its not on accident. He/she/ze would be knowingly violating the law.

---

I do not think this judge has impressed that on this jury.

Quote:

---

How do things play out once the prosecution is done? Will they just adjourn for the day, and come back tomorrow to start deliberations?

---

It depends on when this is done and what they want to do.

Quote:

---

Or will they do an initial vote or anything before adjourning?

---

No one not in that room can say. Its a total guess really.

Quote:

---

asking jurors how many times they have gotten a new phone and done a factory reset.

---

I am betting a majority of the jurors don't know what "factory reset" of a phone means. They go to the carrier store, buy a phone, turn it on and follow the prompts (or have someone at the store do it for them).

AustinAg2K said:

---

How do things play out once the prosecution is done? Will they just adjourn for the day, and come back tomorrow to start deliberations? Or will they do an initial vote or anything before adjourning?

Normally, I would think that it would help the prosecution to have the jury sit with their closing overnight before they start deliberations. However, with such a focus on Cohen, I feel like that's what they are really going to be left with. The other evidence, which the prosecution is trying to argue matters more, is going to get quickly forgotten as this moves to just, "Do I believe Cohen?"

---

Merchan has to charge the jury first. Merchan has estmated it will take him about an hour to do that. Given the lateness they will be going today, Merchan will start off tomorrow by giving the jury the charge and then they begin deliberations.

Quote:

---

I do not think this judge has impressed that on this jury.

---

Well he's going to say it no less than 100 times when he gives them instructions!

Quote:

---

Since one of the attorneys on the jury is reportedly a civil trial lawyer, do you think he will be thinking in those terms (especially after the biased judge's jury charge that we know is coming) rather than realizing the rules are different in a criminal trial?

---

Any lawyer with functioning brain cells would know the difference.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

I do not think this judge has impressed that on this jury.

---

Well he's going to say it no less than 100 times when he gives them instructions!

---

Then again, this is Merchan, he might just skip that part. half joking because I have zero faith in this judge.

AggieUSMC said:

---

Quote:

---

Since one of the attorneys on the jury is reportedly a civil trial lawyer, do you think he will be thinking in those terms (especially after the biased judge's jury charge that we know is coming) rather than realizing the rules are different in a criminal trial?

---

Any lawyer with functioning brain cells would know the difference.

---

Don't know many lawyers I see.

Quote:

---

Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench.
He tells the courtroom there will be another break at around 5:30 p.m.
Attorneys have now approached the bench.
A court security officer was just asked to approach the bench.
Some context: The courthouse usually closes at 5 p.m.

---

I know this has been asked previously in this thread, but I don't think I ever saw an answer.

I thought with both opening and closing arguments, it always the order was prosecution first, defense last. Is this not the case? What or who determines the order...the judge?

Seems to me that it's not fair at all to a defense, any defense, to go first in closing arguments. Makes no sense to me at all.

Quote:

---

I thought with both opening and closing arguments, it always went prosecution first, defense last. Is this not the case? What or who determines the order...the judge?

---

In just about everywhere I have paid attention, you are correct on the Order.

In NY, by statute, the order on a criminal case is defendant then prosecution!

discussed a few pages back, NY is different

Tramp96 said:

---

I know this has been asked previously in this thread, but I don't think I ever saw an answer.

I thought with both opening and closing arguments, it always the order was prosecution first, defense last. Is this not the case? What or who determines the order...the judge?

Seems to me that it's not fair at all to a defense, any defense, to go first in closing arguments. Makes no sense to me at all.

---

NY law may be different. Yes, normally it's prosecution's closing argument followed by the defense and then the prosecution gets a rebuttal. NY law may eschew the rebuttal. Customarily, the prosecution gets the last word since they have the burden of proof.

Tramp96 said:

---

I know this has been asked previously in this thread, but I don't think I ever saw an answer.

I thought with both opening and closing arguments, it always the order was prosecution first, defense last. Is this not the case? What or who determines the order...the judge?

Seems to me that it's not fair at all to a defense, any defense, to go first in closing arguments. Makes no sense to me at all.

---

In most jurisdictions the order is prosecution, then defense, then prosecution on rebuttal. NY state apparently has a quirky law that allows for this, I guess.

It's different in some states/jurisdictions.

I've seen a lot of places do it prosecution, then defense, then prosecution again.

So in most places prosecution still gets the last word

Tramp96 said:

---

I know this has been asked previously in this thread, but I don't think I ever saw an answer.

I thought with both opening and closing arguments, it always the order was prosecution first, defense last. Is this not the case? What or who determines the order...the judge?

Seems to me that it's not fair at all to a defense, any defense, to go first in closing arguments. Makes no sense to me at all.

---

I think also in Minneapolis for the Derek Chauvin trial.

The idea since the state has such a high burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, they should at least have the last word.

Steinglass resumes his summation and likens the Access Hollywood tape to a Category 5 hurricane.

(Hope Hicks testified it knocked the landfall of a Cat 4 off the nightly news.)

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) May 28, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass calls David Pecker's testimony "utterly damning."

Quote:

---

"Mr. Pecker has absolutely no reason to lie here, he still considers Mr. Trump a friend and mentor and yet his testimony was utterly devastating," Steinglass says.

---

Steinglass says that Pecker's testimony "eliminates the whole notion that this was politics as usual" and that you don't need Michael Cohen's testimony to prove there was a conspiracy.

---

Quote:

---

Former President Donald Trump's eldest sons Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump and his daughter-in-law and Republican National Committee co-chair Lara Trump railed against key figures in the hush money trial outside the Manhattan courtroom where closing arguments are taking place.
Trump's eldest sons attacked and tried to undermine the credibility of Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness, and New York District Attorney Alvin Bragg, who brought the case against Trump.
Donald Trump Jr. took aim at Robert De Niro, who spoke to reporters outside of the courthouse earlier on Tuesday on behalf of the Biden campaign.

Quote:

---

"We understand that this is a political persecution. That was evidenced today by the Biden campaign themselves holding a rally here," Donald Trump Jr. said.

---

Eric Trump said, "I want to say sorry to the jury that's in there. This has been the greatest colossal waste of time."
Lara Trump asked supporters to donate and plugged Trump's campaign website. Tiffany Trump also attended the trial on Tuesday but did not come to speak to reporters.
They did not take questions from reporters.

---

Quote:

---

"To be sure" some witnesses want to see Donald Trump convicted, says prosecutor Joshua Steinglass. "They've been attacked by the defendant on social media."
The prosecutor acknowledges that Stormy Daniels is one of them.

Quote:

---

"They've shamed her. They've tried to suggest her story has changed over the years. It has not, at least not in any way that's significant.
"To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringeworthy," Steinglass says.

---

---

GMAFB. Poor Stormy.

Quote:

---

Before prosecution began its closing arguments, the attorneys on both sides and the judge discussed Trump attorney's Todd Blanche's comments about Michael Cohen's credibility during his closing argument.
CNN's Paula Reid explained why the comment was a "third rail."
What Blanche said about Cohen: "Then he came in here, he raised his right hand and he lied to each of you repeatedly. You cannot send someone to prison you cannot convict somebody based upon the words of Michael Cohen."
Why it's controversial: "The jury is not going to sentence the defendant if he is convicted. And the judge suggested that this was part of an effort to elicit sympathy, potentially, for the defendant. So that's why this is such an issue. They should not be bringing this up because this is not the jury's job right now to decide whether or not someone goes to prison," Reid explained.

Quote:

---

"Their job is to look at the facts and the law and decide whether this is an acquittal or if this is a conviction. That's their task, and it has nothing to do with sentencing. And that's why prosecutors objected and the judge agreed," she added.

---

---

---

I got a nice chuckle out of this LIE:

Quote:

---

"They've shamed her. They've tried to suggest her story has changed over the years. It has not, at least not in any way that's significant.

"To be sure, there were parts of her testimony that were cringeworthy," Steinglass says.

---

a) she said she did NOT have sex with Trump
b) she testified she DID have sex with Trump

Yep...not a significant change.

Quote:

---

The jury is reentering the courtroom, and prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is expected to resume his closing argument soon.

---

Judges have power to curtail the length of closing arguments by time restraints. They use that power regularly for the jury's sake. So Merchan could have told Stenglass to get a move on and wind it up faster but he did not.

That's telling because as I and other attorneys with trial experience know that much over two hours and the jury just tunes out. In argument, hit he beggining hard, muddle in the middle and then stick the landing. So when the argument goes on for too long, the jury has tuned out before one gets to the finale.

All the accountants and auditors are groaning at the invoice below...

Steinglass:

Just as Cohen used a shell company to disguise the identities behind this transaction, so did Pecker.

This is another falsified business record to influence an election because there were not "advisory services"; only a payoff to McDougal. pic.twitter.com/9NFgWHTJoF

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) May 28, 2024

pacecar02 said:

---

discussed a few pages back, NY is (D)ifferent

---

FIFY

Quote:

---

Closing arguments are not the time for lawyers to try to persuade jurors to side with them, one jury consultant said.
Instead, both sides are trying to articulate their arguments to the jurors who already believe in their case, according to Melissa Gomez. The lawyers want those jurors to fight for their desired outcome during deliberations.
"What they need to do is use that closing argument to provide the ammunition, to provide the argument for those jurors who already believe in their side," Gomez said.
Once the jurors get the case, the lawyers don't have any more influence, she said, underscoring the importance of explaining how the evidence relates to the charges one last time.
"They need to make sure that they've provided the jurors who believed in their side of the case what they need to fight for them in the deliberation room," Gomez said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass resumes his closing arguments.

Quote:

---

He starts:
"Four weeks before the election the campaign was rocked to its core" with the release of the Access Hollywood tape.

---

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass notes that former Trump aide Hope Hicks testified that the news of the "Access Hollywood" tape "was so explosive, it eclipsed the coverage of a Category 4 hurricane."
"So I guess it was a Category 5 hurricane," he says of the tape.
Steinglass is showing the jury the transcript of the tape and highlighting the graphic language Trump used.
"The video was vulgar to say the least" Steinglass says.

---

Quote:

---

Joshua Steinglass plays a clip of Donald Trump's video responding to the "Access Hollywood" tape, as well as a timeline showing text messages in the fallout, including communications between Michael Cohen and Hope Hicks, Steve Bannon and David Pecker.

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

All the accountants and auditors are groaning at the invoice below...

Steinglass:

Just as Cohen used a shell company to disguise the identities behind this transaction, so did Pecker.

This is another falsified business record to influence an election because there were not "advisory services"; only a payoff to McDougal. pic.twitter.com/9NFgWHTJoF

— Adam Klasfeld (@KlasfeldReports) May 28, 2024

---

"Where's the itemization? Where's the damn itemization???"

My note: Steinglass knows he’s lost the jury, and he’s trying to get them back not by trying to legally prove the case, but by trying to bring up the salacious Access Hollywood tape, which has NOTHING to do with any of the charges that the Soros funded prosecution has brought.

— Andrew H. Giuliani (@AndrewHGiuliani) May 28, 2024

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Closing arguments are not the time for lawyers to try to persuade jurors to side with them, one jury consultant said.
Instead, both sides are trying to articulate their arguments to the jurors who already believe in their case, according to Melissa Gomez. The lawyers want those jurors to fight for their desired outcome during deliberations.
"What they need to do is use that closing argument to provide the ammunition, to provide the argument for those jurors who already believe in their side," Gomez said.
Once the jurors get the case, the lawyers don't have any more influence, she said, underscoring the importance of explaining how the evidence relates to the charges one last time.
"They need to make sure that they've provided the jurors who believed in their side of the case what they need to fight for them in the deliberation room," Gomez said.

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass resumes his closing arguments.

Quote:

---

He starts:
"Four weeks before the election the campaign was rocked to its core" with the release of the Access Hollywood tape.

---

---

Quote:

---

Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass notes that former Trump aide Hope Hicks testified that the news of the "Access Hollywood" tape "was so explosive, it eclipsed the coverage of a Category 4 hurricane."
"So I guess it was a Category 5 hurricane," he says of the tape.
Steinglass is showing the jury the transcript of the tape and highlighting the graphic language Trump used.
"The video was vulgar to say the least" Steinglass says.

---

Quote:

---

Joshua Steinglass plays a clip of Donald Trump's video responding to the "Access Hollywood" tape, as well as a timeline showing text messages in the fallout, including communications between Michael Cohen and Hope Hicks, Steve Bannon and David Pecker.

---

---

I don't understand why the Access Hollywood tape is pertinent to the charges against Trump?

BREAKING: Members of the media from the hush money case courtroom believe the prosecutors have LOST the vote of at least half the jurors. Here's a conversation between reporters

“Steinglass has lost the jury. I’m looking at them. They look lost. I’m counting 7 not guilty votes.”… pic.twitter.com/80W6ITYE4s

— George (@BehizyTweets) May 28, 2024