Lawrence: Trump lawyers put an uncouth buffoon on the stand to defend an uncouth buffoon
In this episode of Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News, the legal team defending former President Donald Trump faces challenges in his first criminal trial. Lawrence O'Donnell critiques the defense's tactics and strategy, highlighting the team's apparent struggles to present a substantive case.
The discussion covers the defense's controversial witnesses, Trump's decision not to testify, and the notable absence of key figures like Allen Weisselberg from the proceedings. Legal experts also break down the pivotal role of jury instructions, analyzing the prosecution's push for "indirect" causation language and debates over legal unanimity requirements that could significantly shape the jury's approach.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 22, 2024 episode of the Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
The Defense's Struggles
In Donald Trump's first criminal trial, the defense faced significant challenges according to Lawrence O'Donnell. The team's strategy drew repeated criticism from Judge Marchean for tactics that frustrated the court and lacked substance.
O'Donnell Describes a Disastrous Defense Case
O'Donnell outlines how the defense called just two witnesses whose testimonies were ineffective, if not damaging. A paralegal's spreadsheet provided no real evidence, while witness Robert Costello's testimony was likened to "drunk driving" due to his combative behavior and inconsistencies that seemed to support Michael Cohen's credibility instead.
Trump Did Not Testify
While jurors were instructed to not hold Trump's silence against him, Weissmann notes some may consider the defendant's predictable absence from testifying. O'Donnell and Weissmann challenge the credibility of Trump's justifications for not taking the stand, given his Fifth Amendment rights and the widely anticipated expectation he would testify.
Key Absences
Lisa Rubin points to the notable absence of key witness Alan Weisselberg, who has a history of perjury. Weissmann suggests prosecutors avoided calling him due to his unreliability under oath. Meanwhile, the defense brought attention to the lack of testimony from Trump's former bodyguard Keith Schiller, whose account could have contradicted or corroborated evidence about the Stormy Daniels payments.
Pivotal Jury Instructions
Debate has arisen over the precise legal wording and standards within the jury instructions, as O'Donnell and legal experts discuss the jury's attentiveness to the judge's guidance and its likely impact on deliberations.
Prosecution's Push for "Indirect" Causation
The prosecution aims to include language that could ease the burden of proving Trump "caused" falsifications, advocating for an interpretation where setting events into motion that foreseeably result in false entries would suffice. The defense insists on instructions requiring direct orders from Trump.
Debate Over Legal Unanimity
Trump's lawyer Emil Bove pushed for jurors to make specific conspiracy findings due to the stakes of the case. However, the prosecution and judge were unwilling to reshape the uniform application of law for a single case.
Throughout, Judge Marchean's rulings and the attorneys' focus underscores how these legal instructions are expected to heavily influence the jury's approach.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The defense in Donald Trump's first criminal trial faced significant challenges due to a strategy criticized for being frustrating to the court and lacking substance. Their choice of witnesses and evidence, including a paralegal's spreadsheet and a combative witness, Robert Costello, did not effectively support their case. Trump's decision not to testify and the absence of key witnesses like Alan Weisselberg and Keith Schiller also posed challenges for the defense.
- Alan Weisselberg is a key figure in the Trump Organization, serving as its CFO. He has been involved in various financial dealings of the organization and has been a close confidant of Donald Trump. Weisselberg's history of perjury suggests past instances where he may have lied under oath, which could impact his credibility as a witness in legal proceedings. His potential unreliability under oath may have influenced the decision not to call him as a witness in the trial.
- Alan Weisselberg, a key witness in the case, has a history of perjury, which means he has been found to lie under oath in the past. Due to this unreliability, prosecutors may have chosen not to call him to testify in the trial to avoid potential credibility issues and to maintain the strength of their case. This decision reflects a common legal strategy to avoid using witnesses with credibility concerns that could undermine the prosecution's arguments in court.
- Keith Schiller, as Trump's former bodyguard, could have provided crucial insights into the Stormy Daniels payments. His testimony might have clarified whether Trump was directly involved in orchestrating or authorizing the payments, shedding light on potential campaign finance violations. Schiller's account could have either corroborated or contradicted existing evidence, influencing the jury's perception of Trump's knowledge and involvement in the controversial payments.
- The debate over legal wording and standards within jury instructions revolves around the specific language used to guide jurors on how to interpret the law and apply it to the case at hand. This includes discussions on the level of causation required to hold someone accountable for a crime and the unanimity needed among jurors to reach a verdict. The prosecution and defense often have differing views on how these instructions should be framed to best serve their respective arguments and legal strategies. These instructions play a crucial role in shaping the jury's understanding of the case and can significantly impact the final verdict.
- The prosecution seeks to establish indirect causation, suggesting that setting events in motion leading to false entries should be sufficient to prove Trump's involvement. In contrast, the defense insists on requiring direct orders from Trump to establish his culpability in any falsifications. This difference in perspective on causation requirements is a key point of contention in the trial, shaping how the actions and intentions of Trump are interpreted in relation to the alleged crimes.
- The reluctance of the prosecution and judge to reshape the application of law for a single case indicates their commitment to maintaining consistent legal standards and principles across all cases. This approach ensures fairness, predictability, and the integrity of the legal system. It prevents creating special rules or exceptions that could undermine the rule of law. The prosecution and judge prioritize upholding the established legal framework over making case-specific adjustments that could set potentially problematic precedents.
Counterarguments
- The defense's strategy may have been more about creating reasonable doubt than presenting a robust case, which is a legitimate legal tactic.
- Criticism from the judge does not necessarily indicate a weak defense; it could reflect a judge's disagreement with the defense's legal theories or style.
- The effectiveness of witnesses is subjective and can be debated; what one observer sees as damaging, another might see as strategic.
- The decision for Trump not to testify could be seen as a strategic legal decision rather than an admission of guilt or avoidance of scrutiny.
- The absence of key witnesses like Alan Weisselberg could be due to a variety of strategic reasons, not necessarily an indication of a weak defense.
- The defense's focus on the lack of testimony from Keith Schiller could be a valid point to highlight gaps in the prosecution's case.
- Legal debates over jury instructions are common and represent the adversarial nature of the legal system, not necessarily a flaw in the defense's or prosecution's arguments.
- The push for specific conspiracy findings by Trump's lawyer could be a legitimate request to ensure clarity and fairness in the jury's decision-making process.
- The uniform application of law is a principle of justice, but arguing for case-specific instructions can also be seen as advocating for a fair trial tailored to the unique circumstances of the case.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The defense's strategy and performance in the trial
In Donald Trump's first criminal trial, Lawrence O’Donnell paints a picture of a defense team struggling to present a coherent case, frustrating the judge, and generally failing to provide substantial evidence or witnesses for the defense.
The defense presented a disastrous case, with no real evidence or defense for Donald Trump
O'Donnell outlines a defense strategy that not only brought no evidence in Trump’s favor but also infuriated Judge Marsham with legal strategies and arguments that went against previous rulings. The defense team was publicly admonished for their conduct in court, which harmed their professional reputation.
The defense called just two witnesses, neither of whom helped their case
The defense called only two witnesses. The first, a paralegal assistant, presented merely a spreadsheet of phone calls that offered nothing substantive to aid the defense. Then came Robert Costello's catastrophic testimony.
The testimony of Robert Costello, a defense witness, was a catastrophic mistake that backfired on the defense
Witness Robert Costello's time on the stand was compared to "drunk driving" and was widely regarded by fair-minded observers as a critical mistake. His contemptuous behavior prompted the judge to threaten to remove him from the stand and strike his testimony. His courtroom conduct increased court security presence, and he specifically insulted Assistant District Attorney Susan Hoffinger during the cross-examination, potentially revealing his contemptuous character to the jury.
Weissmann discussed how Costello's testimony not only failed to help the defense but further discredited it. The paralegal's testimony highlighted inconsistencies in the defense’s account, and Costello's testimony se ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The defense's strategy and performance in the trial
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The defense's legal arguments involved terms like "advice of counsel," "presence of counsel," and "involvement of counsel," which were used interchangeably but caused confusion. The defense's shifting terminology may have been an attempt to avoid disclosing certain documents or information. The judge's frustration with these tactics suggests the defense may have been trying to manipulate the c ...
Counterarguments
- The defense may have had a strategic reason for presenting a limited number of witnesses, such as a belief that the prosecution had not met its burden of proof, or a desire to avoid exposing their witnesses to cross-examination.
- The effectiveness of a defense should not be solely judged by the number of witnesses called, but rather by the overall legal strategy and the final verdict.
- The behavior of a single witness, such as Robert Costello, does not necessarily reflect the competence or preparedness of the entire defense team.
- The defense's legal arguments, while frustrating to the judge, might have been part of a larger legal strategy aimed at preserving issues for appeal.
- The judge's public admonishment of the defense team's conduct could be seen as prejudicial and could potentially be grounds for an appeal if it is deemed to have unfairly influenced the jury.
- The term "disastrous" is subjective and may not accurately reflect the defense's performance from a legal standpoint, especially if the trial is ongoing or ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Key witnesses that were not called to testify
Lawrence O’Donnell and Andrew Weissmann dissect notable absences in the witness list during a recent high-profile trial, discussing Donald Trump's failure to testify, as well as the absence of key figures like Alan Weisselberg and Keith Schiller.
Donald Trump, the defendant, did not testify in his own defense
O’Donnell notes that Donald Trump didn't testify in his own defense. Weissmann remarks on Trump's habit of claiming a desire to testify juxtaposed against a predictable absence. He points to the defense's likely reasoning—advice from lawyers against it—for Trump not taking the stand.
Despite jurors being instructed they must not hold Trump’s silence against him, Weissmann suggests that some jurors might still consider it, indicating a possible impact on their deliberations.
Trump's excuse for not testifying is not credible, as he was never going to take the stand
Weissmann tackles the credibility of Trump's excuses for not testifying, stating that Trump was never truly inclined to take the stand. The discussion includes Trump’s Fifth Amendment rights and the jury’s expectation to hear from him, despite his eventual absence.
Alan Weisselberg, a key figure in the alleged crimes, did not testify
Lisa Rubin brings up the lack of testimony from another significant player: Alan Weisselberg. She expresses intrigue over whether the jury will receive instructions regarding his absence, similar to those about Trump.
Prosecutors likely avoided calling Weisselberg due to his history of perjury and unreliability as a witness
O’Donnell and Weissmann delve into the decision-making behind not calling Alan Weisselberg, citing his incarceration for perjury as a major factor. Weissmann explains that the potential for future perjury and complexities surrounding immunity offers likely contributed to the decision.
Given Weisselberg's history of lying under oath, his absence from the witness list suggests prosecutors deemed him too unreliable, bolstering the impression that he narrowly escaped a perjury accusation during the Trump Organization trial.
Keith Schiller, Trump's former bodyguard, could have provided important testimony bu ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Key witnesses that were not called to testify
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in criminal cases. This protection is commonly known as the right to remain silent. It allows individuals to refuse to answer questions or testify in court if their responses could potentially incriminate them. This right is often invoked by individuals, like Donald Trump in the text, to avoid self-incrimination by not testifying in legal proceedings. The Fifth Amendment aims to prevent coerced confessions and ensure fair treatment of individuals in the criminal justice system.
- The Stormy Daniels payments relate to hush money paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep quiet about an alleged affair with Donald Trump. These payments were made through Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to prevent Daniels from speaking publicly about the affair before the 2016 presidential election. The significance lies in potential campaign finance violations and the implications for Trump's reputation and legal troubles. The payments have been a subject of legal scrutiny and investigations into possible misconduct.
- Alan Weisselberg's absence from testifying in the trial could have impacted the case significantly. As a key figure in the alleged crimes, his testimony could have provided crucial insights and evidence. Prosecutors may have avoided calling him due to concerns about his credibility, given his histo ...
Counterarguments
- The decision for Donald Trump not to testify could be a standard legal strategy to avoid self-incrimination, rather than an indication of guilt or the credibility of his excuses.
- Jurors are instructed to not consider a defendant's silence as evidence of guilt, and it is possible that they adhered strictly to this instruction, rendering Trump's silence neutral in their deliberations.
- Alan Weisselberg's absence from the witness list could be due to reasons other than his unreliability, such as strategic legal co ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The upcoming jury instructions and their importance in the case
The instructions that the judge will give to the jury in the coming trial are pivotal and topic of intense discussion as they could significantly shape the outcome of the case.
The judge's instructions to the jury on the legal standards will be crucial
Both sides have contended at length over the wording and content of the jury instructions. The prosecution aims to include language that eases the burden of proving that Trump "caused" the falsification of business records. These words carry considerable weight, as jurors historically take the judge's legal guidance seriously, a fact that markedly influences their deliberations.
The judge’s instructions are not just a formality but a significant element in the jury's deliberation process. Judge Marsham's decision to withhold certain instructions and prevent the defense from pursuing specific arguments underscores their import.
Weissmann notes the judge's essential role in schooling the jury on their right to disregard the defendant's decision not to testify. Such directives from the judge help frame the jury's approach and their understanding of legal standards.
The prosecution's arguments for including certain language
The crux of the matter lies in the exact phrasing regarding how Trump may have "caused" the falsification of business records. Lisa Rubin points out a dispute about the meaning of "cause" in the instruction. Prosecutors contend for an indirect interpretation, where setting a scheme into motion that results in foreseeable false entries would suffice. Conversely, the defense insists on a definition requiring direct orders to falsify records.
Accessorial liability in jury instructions
Although accessorial liability is not mentioned explicitly in the provided transcript, it seems to be part of the broader discussion of legal responsibilities that may impact the jury's understanding of their instructions. Judge Mershon’s reluctance to adopt the prosecution’s broader definition of "causing" could be a reflection of this debate.
There needs to be unanimity among jurors
A more technical yet pivotal point discussed was whether jurors must agree unanimously on the same theory of conspiracy's unlawful means. Emil Bove ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The upcoming jury instructions and their importance in the case
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Accessorial liability is a legal concept where a person can be held responsible for a crime committed by another person. In the context of jury instructions, it may be relevant when discussing the extent of one's involvement in a crime and how that impacts their legal culpability. Understanding accessorial liability helps jurors determine the level of responsibility of each party involved in the case. It can influence how jurors interpret the evidence presented and apply the law to the facts of the case.
- The debate over the meaning of "cause" in jury instructions revolves around whether indirect actions that lead to falsification of records should be considered sufficient for establishing guilt, or if direct orders are necessary for culpability. This disagreement between the prosecution and defense highlights differing interpretations of how responsibility for criminal acts should be defined in the context of the case. The prosecution argues for a broader interpretation of "cause," while the defense insists on a more direct and explicit standard for attributing responsibility. This debate is crucial as it directly impacts how jurors will assess Trump's involvement in the alleged falsification of business records.
- In a criminal trial, unanimity among jurors on conspiracy theories means that all jurors must agree on the specific theory or theories of conspiracy that the defendant is accused of. This requirement ensures that there is a clear and consistent understanding among the jurors regarding the charges and the evidence presented. If jurors do not reach a unanimous decision on the conspiracy theories presented, it can lead to a hung jury or a mistrial. This principle is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the jury's decision-making process in complex cases involving conspiracy charges.
- The judge's decision to withhold certain instructions can impact the case by limiting the legal guidance provided to the jury, potentially affecting their understanding of key legal standards and arguments presented by both the prosecution and defense. This selective instruction can shape how jurors interpret the evidence and apply the law to the case, influencing their f ...
Counterarguments
- While the jury instructions are important, the evidence presented during the trial is also a critical factor in the jury's decision-making process.
- Jurors may not always be heavily influenced by the judge's instructions if they have strong preconceived notions about the case.
- The debate over the wording of jury instructions, while significant, may not be as pivotal as the actual presentation of evidence and witness testimony.
- The assumption that the prosecution's proposed language would ease the burden of proving Trump's involvement could be seen as subjective and not necessarily reflective of the legal standards.
- The importance of the judge's instructions could be overstated if jurors rely more on their interpretation of the evidence rather than the legal framework provided.
- The concept of "cause" in legal instructions is complex, and there may be valid legal theories that support the defense's perspective on the need for direct orders to falsify records.
- The unanimity among jurors on a conspiracy theory may not be as critical if the law allows for conviction based on different acts that constitute the same offense.
- Jurors' attention to legal g ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
