This could be wild

In reply to BMX Bandit

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.

In reply to aggiehawg

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.

In reply to Im Gipper

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

In reply to aggiehawg

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!

In reply to Im Gipper

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.

In reply to Im Gipper

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.

In reply to SA68AG Whoops!!

You are right! Brain fart!

In reply to aggiehawg

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.

In reply to SwigAg11

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.

In reply to aggiehawg

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?

In reply to SwigAg11

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

In reply to VaultingChemist Cross posted from political tweet thread.

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

In reply to nortex97 But nothing will happen. Crickets from the MSM.

In reply to SwigAg11

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.

In reply to BMX Bandit

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.

In reply to nortex97

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.

In reply to whatthehey78 I think so, but MTG climbed willingly into the mud pit with them, proverbially.

In reply to whatthehey78

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.