"The E-mail Speaks for Itself"
The latest episode of Rachel Maddow Presents: Déjà News delves into the prosecution's cross-examination of Robert Costello and the impact of his revealing emails. Listeners gain insights into how Costello's testimony bolstered Cohen's credibility and exposed Trump's involvement in the scheme.
The summary also covers the upcoming charge conference and predictions for the closing arguments. Experts weigh in on the prosecution's anticipated timeline approach and the defense's potential strategies to sow doubt and revisit rejected arguments.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 25, 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
Cross-Examination of Robert Costello and the Prosecution's Evidence
Hoffinger's Impactful Cross-Examination
Susan Hoffinger's redirect of Robert Costello proved pivotal, as she used Costello's own emails to contradict his testimony, McCord notes. The emails revealed a coordinated effort by Trump's allies to influence Cohen's cooperation, exposing lies in Costello's statements, according to Weissmann.
Significance of Costello's Testimony
While only marginally relevant to Trump's charges, McCord states, the prosecution leveraged Costello's testimony and evidence to corroborate Cohen's credibility and demonstrate Trump's involvement in the scheme, Weissmann explains.
Upcoming Charge Conference and Jury Instructions
Jury Instructions' Importance
Jury instructions are critical for closing arguments, McCord notes, as they outline the legal elements and what must be proven. Weissmann emphasizes following these rules, as errors can lead to appeal issues.
Disputes Over Instructions
The defense failed to persuade inclusions like requiring unanimity on predicate crimes and Trump's intent instructions, though arguments like potential evidence spoliation were allowed. The judge also denied exceptions to existing laws on unanimity.
Closing Argument Predictions
The Prosecution's Approach
Weissmann expects the prosecution to build a clear timeline using documentary evidence first, then weave in Cohen's testimony to bolster credibility. This avoids initially relying solely on Cohen.
The Defense's Approach
McCord and Weissmann predict the defense will emphasize lack of direct evidence to sow reasonable doubt, argue the burden is heightened for a former president, and potentially reintroduce rejected arguments.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Costello's testimony was used to corroborate Cohen's credibility and show Trump's involvement in a scheme, even though it was not directly related to Trump's charges. The prosecution leveraged Costello's statements and evidence to support their case against Trump. Costello's emails were crucial in revealing efforts by Trump's allies to influence Cohen's cooperation, which contradicted Costello's testimony and exposed lies.
- Jury instructions are crucial in trials as they explain the law to the jury, outlining what must be proven for a conviction. They help jurors understand the legal standards and elements required for a guilty verdict. Following these instructions is vital to ensure a fair trial and to prevent potential appeal issues. Errors in jury instructions can impact the outcome of a case and may lead to legal challenges.
- The defense wanted the jury to agree unanimously on each specific crime that formed the basis of the charges. They also sought specific instructions regarding Trump's intent in the alleged scheme. These requests were part of the legal arguments made by the defense team during the trial proceedings.
- Evidence spoliation concerns the intentional or negligent destruction, alteration, or concealment of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. In this context, the defense may have argued that certain evidence was mishandled or tampered with, potentially impacting the fairness of the trial. Such disputes can arise when there are concerns about the integrity or completeness of the evidence presented in court. The defense may seek to raise doubts about the reliability or authenticity of the evidence due to issues related to spoliation.
- In legal contexts, the burden being heightened for a former president means that due to their previous high office, there may be increased scrutiny or expectations regarding their actions and legal responsibilities. This can impact how evidence is evaluated and the level of proof required to establish guilt or innocence. The unique status of a former president can influence how their case is perceived by the court and the public.
Counterarguments
- Hoffinger's use of Costello's emails may be challenged on the grounds of context or interpretation, suggesting that the emails do not necessarily contradict Costello's testimony when viewed in full context.
- The revelation of a coordinated effort by Trump's allies could be argued as circumstantial and not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing or intent to influence Cohen improperly.
- The significance of Costello's testimony in corroborating Cohen's credibility could be questioned if there are inconsistencies in Cohen's own past statements or actions that undermine his reliability.
- While jury instructions are critical, the defense might argue that the instructions given were sufficient and that the judge's rulings on them were legally sound.
- The defense could contend that the judge's denial of certain jury instructions was appropriate and in line with legal precedent.
- The defense might argue that the prosecution's reliance on documentary evidence and Cohen's testimony does not adequately address the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Emphasizing the lack of direct evidence could be criticized for overlooking the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence, which can be compelling in a legal context.
- The argument that the burden of proof is heightened for a former president could be seen as contrary to the principle that all defendants are equal before the law.
- The defense's potential reintroduction of rejected arguments might be viewed as a strategic move to highlight perceived limitations or errors in the trial process, even if those arguments were previously deemed inadmissible or irrelevant by the court.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The cross-examination of a key defense witness (Robert Costello) and the powerful evidence presented by the prosecution
The cross-examination of Robert Costello and the revelation of compelling emails have been a focal point in the case, casting doubt on the defense team's narrative.
Hoffinger's impactful redirect examination of Costello
Susan Hoffinger’s cross-examination of Robert Costello proved to be a decisive moment in the courtroom.
Hoffinger skillfully used Costello's own emails and correspondence to contradict and discredit his testimony
Mary McCord observes that Susan Hoffinger’s redirect examination of Robert Costello was quite impactful, as Hoffinger conducted the cross-examination quickly and effectively, using emails as the cornerstone of her strategy. Hoffinger read aloud an email Costello sent, which outlined a goal to get Cohen to follow instructions from Rudy Giuliani and President Trump surreptitiously.
The emails revealed a coordinated effort by Trump's allies to keep Cohen in line and influence his cooperation
Andrew Weissmann points out that the evidence from the emails and correspondence during the examination revealed lies in Costello's testimony. The emails showed a coordinated effort by Costello, Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow, and President Trump’s team to align Michael Cohen with Trump's interests—strategies were revealed for keeping Cohen onside without making it look like he was under the direction of Giuliani or the President. Weissmann notes that evidence clearly depicts an attempt by Donald Trump to prevent Michael Cohen from testifying and thus keep potentially damaging information under wraps.
The significance of Costello's testimony and the prosecution's strategy to address it
The importance of Robert Costello's testimony to the overall state of the trial was evaluated, revealing potential strategies and implications.
Costello's testimony was only marginally relevant to the charges against Trump
Mary McCord expressed uncertainty about the decision to call Robert Costello to testify, questioning the relevance and impact of his testimony in relation to the jury’s decision-making regarding Donald Trump's alleged crimes.
The prosecution used Costello's testimony and relational evidence to corroborate ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The cross-examination of a key defense witness (Robert Costello) and the powerful evidence presented by the prosecution
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Cross-examination is when one party questions a witness called by the opposing party to challenge their testimony. Redirect examination occurs after cross-examination and allows the party who originally called the witness to ask follow-up questions to clarify or rebut points brought up during cross-examination. These procedures are crucial in presenting evidence and testing the credibility of witnesses in a legal setting. The goal is to uncover the truth and present a clear picture of the events in question during a trial.
- In legal contexts, emails can serve as crucial evidence to support or challenge testimonies. They can provide a written record of communication and actions, helping to establish timelines, intentions, and relationships. Emails can be used to demonstrate agreements, contradictions, or attempts to influence events, adding depth and credibility to legal arguments. Courts often consider emails as valuable documentary evidence due to their ability to reveal details that might not be easily recalled or proven solely through verbal testimony.
- Robert Costello's testimony, while marginally relevant to the charges against Trump, inadvertently supported the prosecution's case by revealing a sche ...
Counterarguments
- Hoffinger's use of Costello's emails may have been impactful, but it could be argued that the context of the emails was not fully explored, potentially leaving out explanations that could have justified Costello's correspondence.
- The revelation of a coordinated effort to influence Cohen's cooperation suggests wrongdoing, but it could also be interpreted as a legal team's legitimate strategy to maintain a consistent defense narrative.
- While Costello's testimony might seem marginally relevant, it could have provided the jury with a broader context of the relationships and interactions within Trump's circle, which could be pertinent to understanding the case.
- The prosecution's use of Costello's testimony to corroborate Cohen's credibility assumes that Cohen's testimony is reliable, which could be contested given Cohen's own admission of lying.
- The uncovered scheme to control Cohen, as suggested by the prosecution, might be seen as an aggressive legal defense rather than an illicit con ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The upcoming "charge conference" where the judge will provide jury instructions, and how this will impact the closing arguments
The charge conference, an integral component of the criminal trial process, is on the horizon where the judge will finalize jury instructions crucial for the upcoming closing arguments.
The importance of jury instructions in a criminal trial
Mary McCord discusses the charge conference's significance, highlighting that these instructions delineate the legal elements that must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Both sides, after hearing from the defense and the state, await the judge’s guidance on the law as the charge conference is convened. Weissmann emphasizes the rules set at this time which, if not adhered to in closing summations, may lead to consequences, as the judge will correct it in view of the jury.
These instructions are not only pivotal for they guide the permissible arguments during closing statements but also because substantial errors in them can lead to reversible appellate issues. Weissmann also states that both parties keenly anticipate Judge Michon's decisions on these instructions, which will steer how they approach elements like intent to defraud and the definition of unlawful means.
Key disputes over jury instructions in this case
The defense and the prosecution have clashed over the content of the jury instructions, with both submitting proposals prior to the non-public charging conference. While specific disputes are not detailed, it's mentioned that the defense has failed to persuade the judge to adopt several instructions that would favor their narrative. For instance, they unsuccessfully sought a ruling requiring unanimous jury agreement on the predicate crime related to the false business records charge.
The defense also aimed to incorporate instructions highlighting Donald Trump's intent by stating that mere presence at the scene of a crime does not constitute a personal agreement to engage in a conspiracy. Furthermore, they tried to introduce an 'advice of counsel' instruction to suggest that reliance on lawyers' guidance negates wrongful intent. However, the judge, sticking to prior rulings, denied these, stressing that the conditi ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The upcoming "charge conference" where the judge will provide jury instructions, and how this will impact the closing arguments
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- A charge conference in a criminal trial is a meeting where the judge and the legal teams discuss and finalize the specific instructions that will be given to the jury before they deliberate on a verdict. These instructions outline the legal standards and elements that must be proven for a conviction. The discussions during the charge conference can impact the arguments that the prosecution and defense will make during their closing statements. The judge's decisions on the jury instructions can significantly influence the outcome of the trial.
- Jury instructions in a criminal trial are guidelines given by the judge to the jury about the law relevant to the case. They explain the legal principles that the jury must apply when deciding the verdict. These instructions help the jury understand the charges, elements of the crime, and legal standards they must consider in reaching a decision. Jury instructions play a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial and guiding the jury's deliberations.
- Intent to defraud in a legal context typically involves the deliberate intention to deceive or trick someone for personal gain. Unlawful means, in this case, would encompass methods or actions that are prohibited by law and are used to achieve fraudulent or deceitful objectives. These concepts are crucial in determining guilt in cases involving fraud or deceptive practices.
- A predicate crime in the context of a false business records charge typically refers to an underlying criminal act that forms the basis for the charge of falsifying business records. It is the original offense or unlawful activity that the falsification of records is attempting to conceal or misrepresent. In legal terms, the predicate crime is the initial illegal action that leads to the creation of false records to cover up the wrongdoing.
- An 'advice of counsel' instruction is a legal concept where a defendant argues that they should not be held responsible for a crime because they were following the advice of their lawyer. This defense suggests that the defendant relied on the guidance of their legal counsel in good faith, believing their actions were lawful. The instruction aims to show that the defendant did not have the necessary intent to commit the alleged crime due to their reliance on legal advice. It is up to the judge to decide whether such a defense is valid based on the specific circumstances of the case.
- A spoliation instruction is a directive from the court to the jury regarding the destruction or alteration of evidence by a party involved in the case. It informs the jury that they can infer that the destroyed evidence would have been unfavorable to the party responsible for its destruction. This instruction helps address situations where evidence crucial to a case has been tampered with or lost. The court may allow arguments related to spoliation even if a formal instruction is not given.
- ...
Counterarguments
...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Predictions and analysis of the prosecution and defense's closing arguments to the jury
As the trial progresses, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord reveal what they expect to see in the closing arguments from the prosecution and defense teams.
The prosecution's likely approach
The prosecution is anticipated to meticulously outline a clear sequence of events, supported by an array of documentary evidence to highlight Trump's involvement without initially relying on Michael Cohen's claims.
Presenting a clear timeline using documentary evidence to show Trump's involvement
Weissmann expects the government to establish a timeline based on phone records, emails, and signed documents by Donald Trump himself. This stringent chronology will serve to illustrate the events as they transpired, further substantiated by witness testimonies from figures such as Hope Hicks, Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and others, painting a complete picture of Trump's engagement.
Addressing the "Michael Cohen problem" by first establishing the case without him, then showing how his testimony corroborates the other«
» evidence
The prosecutors should first build their case without invoking Cohen's testimony, later weaving it in to fortify the pre-established narrative. By strategically sequencing the evidence and backing it with Cohen's input, they can reinforce the credibility of the information presented and demonstrate how his testimony validates and corroborates the core evidence, bolstering their argument.
The defense's likely approach
The defense will likely exploit doubts regarding the directness of evidence and will attempt to bolster their case using both reasonable doubt and Trump's former presidential status.
Emphasizing the lack of direct evidence and trying to sow reasonable doubt through minor issues
The defense strategy will revolve around picking apart each piece of evidence, prompting the jury to question whether any single element, on its own, suffices to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Through this fragmentation, they aim to undermine the prosecution and encourage the jury to view the evidence in isolation, thereby cultivating uncertainty.
Arguing that the burden of proof is heighte ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Predictions and analysis of the prosecution and defense's closing arguments to the jury
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Hope Hicks, Michael Cohen, and David Pecker are individuals who have been associated with Donald Trump in various capacities. Hope Hicks served as a close advisor to Trump, Michael Cohen was his former personal attorney, and David Pecker is a media executive with ties to Trump. Their testimonies and involvement in events related to Trump may be significant in the trial proceedings.
- When prosecutors establish a case without relying on a key witness like Michael Cohen, they first present evidence from other sources to build a strong foundation. This approach helps create a coherent narrative supported by various forms of evidence before introducing the key witness's testimony. By doing so, they can demonstrate that the case stands on its own merits and then use the witness to further strengthen their argument. This strategy aims to enhance the credibility of the case by showing that multiple sources of eviden ...
Counterarguments
- The prosecution's reliance on a timeline and documentary evidence may not account for the complexities of intent or the nuances of human behavior, which can't always be captured in documents.
- Building a case without Michael Cohen's testimony initially might inadvertently signal to the jury that his testimony is less reliable or important, potentially weakening its impact when introduced later.
- The defense's strategy to emphasize the lack of direct evidence could overlook the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence, which can be compelling and is often used in criminal cases.
- Arguing for a heightened burden of proof due to Trump's former presidential status could be seen as an appeal t ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
1-Page Summary- The cross-examination of a key defense witness (Robert Costello) and the powerful evidence presented by the prosecution
- The upcoming "charge conference" where the judge will provide jury instructions, and how this will impact the closing arguments
- Predictions and analysis of the prosecution and defense's closing arguments to the jury
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
