> Typically (almost always) the defense has the last word to the jury.
Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know.
Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second:
After all evidence has been presented, the defense may deliver a summation, or a closing statement to the jury. *The prosecutor must then deliver a summation*. The summations review the evidence and present arguments based upon the evidence in the case to try to persuade the jury to convict or acquit the defendant.
So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation.
> So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken.
No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states:
That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.
INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so.
So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them.
It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense.
Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously.
What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy.
We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.
How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
"Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" is a misdemeanour, a small fine. Which at this point (2016) expired and could not be charged.
The main reason this was resurrected and elevated to a Felony is because of politics. The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform". Which under the American system is fine. But suppose he doesn't get Trump in the end. Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
As far as the judge:
The standard for a judge to recuse themselves is public "perception of bias"
How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past. Which is also contrary to NY ethical guidelines for judges.
His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
How can the judge's claim no to be biased be taken seriously when his family has a financial interest in the outcome of the trial?
>"INTENT means conscious objective or purpose. Thus, a person acts with intent > to defraud when his or her conscious objective or purpose is to do so"
How could this trial have proved what it charged .. the intent for classifying the NDA as a legal expense was fraudulent (that it was really a campaign contribution). When there's a gap of a year between the time Trump got elected, and the classification happened. Trump got elected in 2016. Accountant classified it as a legal expense in 2017. How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election?
Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
How can this be a fair trial when the judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution, yet simultaneously denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims. The jury makes decisions based on the evidence they get to hear. Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
Finally, A conflicted judge will jail a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan ...so what is the next phase of their plan to prevent the public from electing Trump in a Democracy? I'm waiting to see.
I can tell you are getting your news about the trial filtered through right wing media, principally because these talking points are the kind of thing I get in my email inbox from the Trump campaign newsletter and Fox News. Most of the info you seek was presented at trial.
It's fascinating to me that you've paid enough attention to the trial to have received the right wing talking points as to why it's objectionable, but you haven't actually looked into any of the first hand information directly from the trial to verify the right wing talking points.
> How did you watch the trial when it wasn't televised?
I was using the word "watch" in the github repo sense, not in the visual television sense. I followed along with it via reporters who went to the trial and wrote down what they heard. Also I followed commentary from former prosecutors, attorneys and judges. I tried to stay away from political commentary from pundits and politicians, and I looked at left and right leaning sources.
> The prosecutor is a Democrat that literally got elected on an "I'll get Trump platform".
I've asked others for a source for this, and the best they have come up with is Bragg saying "We need to hold Trump accountable", which is a pretty anodyne statement for a DA to make compared to the one your purporting him to have made -- "I'll get Trump" is pretty extreme. What I've heard him say specifically is that he promised to follow the facts wherever they lead, and he promised not to prejudge the case.
> Should he be charged for defrauding voters? Clearly he raised money off the promise to get Trump.
He didn't actually campaign on a platform of getting Trump, he had a platform of reducing gun violence and reforming Riker's. Show me Bragg making one single stump speech or campaign event where he promises to "Get Trump". I predict you won't be able to, because actually Bragg is an eminently fair and competent DA, and all around good guy.
> How could the judge not be biased, when he donated to a "Stop Trump" campaign in the past.
Because he didn't -- he donated $15 to pro Biden and $10 to something called "Stop Republicans". It was seen as maybe not a great move by the ethics board, but they dismissed the complaint, and the appeals court didn't step in. At the end of the day, yes the judge is a Democrat. But that does not mean he is automatically biased against Trump and all Republicans to the point he can't preside over this cause. And frankly we don't want to live in a system where the standard is that politicians can only be judged/investigated/prosecuted by members of their own party.
Judges can and must be fair to a defendant even when they disagree with them politically. That is their whole job and we should be putting people in that position who can do precisely that. In the case of Judge Merchan, during the trial is he was eminently fair to Trump. He allowed him to get away with 10 counts of violating a gag order without any jail time. Normal people would be behind bars after 1 instance. Merchan made objections on behalf of defense counsel, and in fact had to warn Trump's attorney that he was dropping the ball for his client when he was failing to object. So the ethics board was right in dismissing the complaint, as the judge was fair to Trump.
> His daughter was and is fund raising millions off the trail.
Under the law she doesn't have enough stake in the outcome of the trial for it to matter. I hear people complaining about this constantly, but how do you figure the daughter of the judge raising money for Democrats means the judge is biased against Trump. Again, his conduct during the trial shows that he in fact was not biased. So what does the daughter have to do with anything. Seems like a red herring to me.
> How could the act of misclassifying be the campaign contribution (the fraudulent act), when it happened post election? ... Without mind reading, how exactly did they manage to prove that NDA was a camping contribution and not simply to spare his spouse embarrassment from an affair from being publicly alleged ?
Read the testimony of Hope Hicks. She testified under oath that he admitted to her after the election, while he was President, that he was fortunate to have hid the information from voters because he feels they would have reacted negatively to it. Trump had the opportunity to defend himself on this point but he didn't, so it's a matter of fact at this point.
> judged allowed the prosecution to state that it is a fact that the payments constituted an unlawful financial contribution
Because it was already adjudicated by SDNY.
> denied Trump the opportunity to present his expert campaign finance witness, that would have countered those claims.
Trump was free to present the witness, but he was looking for the witness to instruct the jury on his own interpretation of the law, which the judge disallowed because that's the judge's role in the trial, not an expert witness'.
> Yet the judge allowed only one side to be presented.
The judge allowed both sides to be presented. The defense was allowed to call any number of witnesses who could have testified in Trump's defense. Allen Weisselberg. Keith Schiller. Trump's family. The doorman who was paid off, I don't know his name. Any of them could have cleared up the matter, but they weren't called in Trump's defense because Trump's counsel knew they wouldn't have stood up under cross. Because Trump is guilty.
> a former President based on a convoluted crime that requires two parts, with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime, and some aspect of mind reading and time travel.
No mind reading. No time travel. It's just that he had to falsify business records in furtherance of another crime. The law is actually 2 pages long and straightforward. Moreover, most laws have more than one part, so that's not really objectionable. Maybe the case is a little convoluted, but that's because the crime was; they intentionally tried to hide this scheme through obfuscation, shell companies, and ultimately fraud -- of course it's convoluted.
> with the second part ambiguous intent to commit X crime,
No ambiguous intent. Pure intent. The jury determined Trump had that intent. Juries are the people in society we task with determining intent of criminal defendants, and they did so in this case. Why is that objectionable to you?
> Doesn't seem like most Americans are on board with this. This is bouncing Trump's poll numbers.
Doesn't matter if most Americans are on board with this, and it doesn't matter what happens to Trump's poll numbers -- it wasn't a political prosecution, it was an application of the law. Why are you bringing political considerations into this?
> The people that want to get "Trump" are not stupid, so this just must be part A of a bigger plan
I wish the trial was televised. The source of information about the trial I'm relying on is Allen Dershowitz and CBC news youtube channels. Derszowtiz is a self described lifet8me Democrat and CBC news is hardly right wing, it's actually kind of opposite.
Allen is an experienced lawyer and gifted lecturer and orator. The criticisms that Allen has levied against the trial are nothing more than simple logical counter arguments to what went on in the court room.
CBC is pretty much is Canadian version of PBS.
I have also watched yesterday a more conspiratorial take on things which I suppose you could classify as fun intuitive speculation. Ian Caroll on Twitter
Where did you hear this? This is not true as far as I know.
Here is a NY State guide to jury trials that seems to support that prosecution always goes second:
https://moderncourts.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/criminal...So first the defense may (they can opt not to) deliver a summation. Then (meaning after the defense) the prosecution must (they don't have a choice) offer a summation.
> So you literally have a situation where the defendant went through a whole trial not knowing the full set of specific laws he was alleged to have broken.
No, this is not literally the situation. He knew the entire time he was charged for "Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree" under NY State law. This was made very clear to him, but moreover his lawyers knew this the entire time as well. The particular law states:
So they did not have to prove commission of an additional crime, they had to prove intent to commit an additional crime. The facts the jury used to determine whether Trump had this intent were presented by the prosecution at trial, and the defense had every opportunity to mount a defense against them.It's not like some surprise evidence was revealed at closing which the defense had no opportunity to counter. In fact, they had every opportunity to mount a defense.
Notably, when they had their chance, they rested their case after calling a single witness who actually, in dramatic fashion, was caught in a lie by the prosecution on cross the way the defense hoped to catch Cohen in a lie on cross. Now it's laughable when they claim "we didn't have a chance to mount a defense", and people who didn't watch the trial treat that credulously.
What exactly would they have said in defense if they had another opportunity? "Cohen's a liar, the judge is biased, the jury is rigged, the venue is not friendly." Nothing we haven't heard already, that's the point; everything that could have been said, has been said, and now that the verdict is "guilty" they want to have said more, as if whatever they have to say isn't more of the same deflection the jury didn't buy.
We will see what the appeals court says but it's not looking good based on the fact many people have tried to argue this point on appeal, and it's been rejected.