184 Posts
Sort by
Closing arguments aren’t about convincing jurors to believe in your side of the case, jury consultant says
From CNN's Elise Hammond
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.
“Whatthey need to do is use thatclosing argument to provide theammunition, to provide theargument for those jurors whoalready 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 thatthey've provided the jurorswho believed in their side ofthe case what they need tofight for them in the deliberation room,” Gomez said.
The jury is back in the courtroom
The jury is reentering the courtroom, and prosecutor Joshua Steinglass is expected to resume his closing argument soon.
Judge is back and says there will be another break
Judge Juan Merchan is back on the bench.
After consulting with a court security officer and the attorneys, he tells the courtroom there will be another break at around 5 p.m. ET.
Merchan says they're trying to figure out what is best for the jurors.
Some context: The courthouse usually closes at 5 p.m.
As court takes break, prosecutor says he's "about a third of the way through" his closing arguments
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.
We are taking an afternoon break
The court is taking a short afternoon break. The prosecution's closing argument will resume after the break.
Prosecutor says tape shows "a presidential candidate actively engaging in a scheme to influence the election"
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."
2016 recorded call about McDougal deal shows Trump's "cavalier willingness" to hide payment, Steinglass says
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass plays the recorded September 2016 conversation between Trump and Michael Cohen aboutbuying 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 willingness 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.
"He's trying to do it in a way that’s not trying to leave a paper trial. That’s the whole point," Steinglass says.
Prosecutor moves on to September 2016 recording about McDougal
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 assistantwho 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 District Attorney Alvin Bragg is watching Steinglass try to explain Cohen's cell phone and the voice recording.
Prosecutor disputes defense argument that AMI made non-prosecution agreement to get some other deal done
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.
"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 struckwith 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."
