In Closing
In the concluding episode of Rachel Maddow's podcast, legal experts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord provide an insider's perspective on the final stages of the Manhattan trial of Donald Trump. They dissect the prosecution and defense's closing arguments, analyzing their strategies and the evidence presented.
The discussion shifts to the critical role of the judge and jury during deliberations, from answering juror questions to mitigating potential deadlocks. Weissmann and McCord also examine recent developments in the Mar-a-Lago case, shedding light on Trump's inflammatory claims about the DOJ and Judge Cannon's controversial rulings. Their analysis offers a nuanced look at the complexities surrounding these high-profile legal cases.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the May 30, 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 Manhattan Trial and Closing Arguments
The defense struggled to address key evidence
Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord criticized the defense for failing to convincingly address damaging evidence like Exhibits 35 and 36, the handwritten notes about the $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels' lawyer. They also noted the defense did not effectively counter testimonies from Hope Hicks and David Pecker and questioned why Cohen or Weisselberg would hide actions from Trump. The defense's stance on the Access Hollywood tape undermined their credibility.
The prosecution laid out a cohesive narrative
The prosecution methodically presented a timeline using over 400 exhibits, highlighting Trump's tendency to micromanage financial disbursements. They rebutted claims that the payments were for legal services, arguing Cohen spent more time testifying than providing legal work. McCord said Trump hired Cohen for his willingness to lie and cheat, discrediting the defense's attacks on Cohen's credibility.
Jury Deliberations and the Judge's Role
Jurors can ask questions, and judges oversee the process
McCord said jurors send questions to the judge, who confers with both parties before responding in open court. For testimony readback requests, the judge determines what will be read. Jurors may initially vote to gauge opinion ranges before deliberating.
Judges balance encouraging deliberations vs. pressuring verdicts
If a jury reports an impasse, the judge may issue an "Allen charge" urging further deliberation attempts. But McCord noted judges must be cautious about avoiding undue coercion through repeated charges.
The Mar-a-Lago Case and Recent Developments
Trump falsely alleged the DOJ authorized deadly force
Trump claimed the DOJ authorized the FBI to use lethal force during the Mar-a-Lago raid, omitting policy details that deadly force is only permitted to prevent imminent threats. His inflammatory statements led the DOJ to file a motion restricting such comments, which Judge Cannon denied on procedural grounds.
Judge Cannon's impartiality questioned
Andrew Weissmann noted the nature of Trump's motions to Cannon suggests they view her as biased. Mary McCord criticized Cannon's paperless order chastising the prosecution's motion as lacking courtesy and substance, despite serious safety risks. Legal experts anticipate Cannon's conduct may face scrutiny from appeals courts.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Hope Hicks and David Pecker are individuals who have been involved in high-profile situations related to former President Donald Trump. Hicks, a longtime aide to Trump, has provided testimony in various investigations related to Trump's activities. David Pecker is the CEO of American Media, which owns the National Enquirer, and has been linked to stories involving Trump. Their testimonies can provide insights into events and interactions relevant to legal proceedings.
- The Access Hollywood tape is a recording from 2005 where Donald Trump, before becoming President, made lewd and derogatory comments about women during a conversation with Billy Bush. The tape resurfaced during the 2016 presidential campaign, causing significant controversy and leading to public backlash against Trump. It became a focal point in discussions about Trump's character and treatment of women. The tape's release had implications for Trump's campaign and public perception.
- An Allen charge is a judicial instruction given to a deadlocked jury to encourage further deliberation in an attempt to reach a verdict. It aims to prevent mistrials by urging jurors to reconsider their positions and try to reach a unanimous decision. The charge is named after the 1896 Supreme Court case Allen v. United States. It is used in situations where the jury is unable to reach a unanimous verdict after reasonable deliberation.
- Judge Cannon's conduct has come under scrutiny due to her interactions with the prosecution in the Mar-a-Lago case. Some legal experts have raised concerns about potential bias based on how she handled motions and orders related to the case. The criticism includes her response to the prosecution's concerns about safety risks and the perceived lack of courtesy in her communication. This scrutiny may lead to further evaluation of her impartiality by higher courts.
Counterarguments
- The defense may have had strategic reasons for not addressing Exhibits 35 and 36 in the way the prosecution or commentators expected.
- The defense's interpretation of the Access Hollywood tape could be based on a different legal perspective or understanding of its relevance to the case.
- The prosecution's narrative of over 400 exhibits must still meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defense could argue that the quantity of evidence does not necessarily equate to quality or relevance.
- The defense could argue that Cohen's credibility is compromised due to his own legal issues and that his testimony should be viewed with skepticism.
- Jurors asking questions and judges overseeing the process is standard, but the defense might argue that the judge's decisions on readbacks could inadvertently influence the jury.
- The use of an "Allen charge" is a legal tool, and the defense might argue that it is a necessary part of the judicial process to prevent hung juries and ensure a verdict is reached.
- Trump's allegations regarding the DOJ's authorization of deadly force during the Mar-a-Lago raid could be seen as a misinterpretation or exaggeration of standard law enforcement procedures, which the defense might argue is not intentionally misleading.
- Judge Cannon's impartiality being questioned is a subjective interpretation, and the defense might argue that her decisions and conduct are within the bounds of judicial discretion and do not necessarily indicate bias.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The Manhattan Trial and Closing Arguments
In the closing arguments of a high-profile trial, both the defense and prosecution laid out their final pitches to the jury, with the defense struggling to address key pieces of evidence and the prosecution presenting a compelling timeline of events.
The defense's closing argument lacked a cogent response to key evidence
The defense failed to convincingly address significant exhibits and testimony that could have impacted their case.
The defense failed to adequately address the significance of Exhibits 35 and 36, as well as damaging testimony from witnesses like Hope Hicks and David Pecker
Mary McCord and Andrew Weissmann discuss how the defense did not mount a strong argument against Exhibits 35 and 36, which were handwritten notes regarding the $130,000 wire transfer from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels' lawyer. The defense also failed to effectively counter the damaging testimonies of Hope Hicks and David Pecker. They criticized the defense for not providing a plausible reason why Cohen or Allen Weisselberg would hide their actions from Donald Trump, and for the defense's use of the term "lies" without explaining why certain evidence should be dismissed.
The defense's treatment of the Access Hollywood tape was not convincing and undermined their credibility
Todd Blanche, in his closing argument, contended that the Access Hollywood tape incident was not a significant campaign crisis, a stance that was considered implausible and possibly detrimental to their credibility.
The prosecution's closing argument effectively laid out the timeline and corroborated the evidence
The prosecution presented a detailed and corroborative account of the evidence, countering the defense's claims.
The prosecution methodically walked through the documentary evidence and testimony, painting a cohesive narrative
The prosecution, using more than 400 exhibits and multimedia slides, methodically walked through emails, text messages, and transcripts to paint a cohesive narrative. They highlighted Trump's nature as a micromanager, specifically pointing out Trump's personal involvement in the sign-off of checks, which underlined his need to maintain control over financial disbursements.
The prosecution responded to the defense's key arguments, such as the claim that the payments were for legal patient services
The prosecution addressed the defense's insistence that pa ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The Manhattan Trial and Closing Arguments
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Hope Hicks and David Pecker were key witnesses in the trial. Hope Hicks, a former White House communications director, and David Pecker, the CEO of American Media, provided testimony that was damaging to the defense's case. Their statements were critical in establishing certain facts and connections related to the trial's central issues.
- The Access Hollywood tape incident refers to a recording from 2005 where Donald Trump made lewd and offensive comments about women during a conversation with Billy Bush. The tape resurfaced during the 2016 presidential campaign, causing significant controversy and leading to widespread condemnation of Trump's remarks. This incident had a notable impact on public perception of Trump's character and behavior, influencing discussions about his fitness for the presidency.
- A reimbursement scheme, in this context, refers to a situation where funds are paid to cover expenses that were initially paid by someone else. In this case, it suggests that Michael Cohen may have paid Stormy Daniels on behalf of Donald Trump, and then Trump reimbursed Cohen for this payment. The prosecution argues that labeling these payments as reimbursements for legal services was a cover-up for potentially illegal activities. This scheme is significant because it implies a deliberate attempt to conceal the true nature of the payments and their intended purpose.
- Stor ...
Counterarguments
- The defense may have had strategic reasons for not addressing Exhibits 35 and 36 in the way expected by observers.
- The defense's interpretation of the Access Hollywood tape's significance could be based on a different legal perspective or understanding of its impact on the jury.
- The prosecution's narrative, while cohesive, may rely on inferences and connections that are not as definitive as they suggest.
- Trump's micromanagement could be interpreted as due diligence rather than direct involvement in any wrongdoing.
- The payments to Michael Cohen could have a legitimate legal explanation that the defense did not adequately convey.
- Cohen's credibility as a witness could be questioned based on his own legal issues and motivations.
- Hiring Cohen for his willingness to lie and cheat is an assertion that requires proof beyond Cohen's own ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Jury Deliberations and the Judge's Role
Understanding the dynamics of jury deliberations and the judge's responsibilities is crucial to the judicial process. Mary McCord sheds light on how jurors communicate with the judge, handle requests, and how a judge may step in when impasses occur.
Jurors will have the opportunity to ask questions and request read-backs of testimony
During jury deliberations, the judge retains a significant role in managing and responding to jury queries.
The judge controls the process for handling jury questions and requests, conferring with the parties
When jurors have questions, particularly regarding legal points, they send a note to the judge. The judge then confers with the parties—either having joint or different proposals—before determining how to proceed. Both sides are heard before the judge announces any decision, and responses to jury questions are given in open court and recorded.
If jurors request a readback of testimony, prosecutors specify what is needed, leading to potential disputes about what falls under the requested topic. The judge has the final say on what will be read back, usually by the court reporter, but occasionally by the judge themselves.
Jurors may initially take a vote to gauge their starting positions before diving into discussions
Jurors do not have prescribed rules on how to conduct their discussions; it is at their discretion. They often start deliberations with a vote to gauge the range of opinions in the room, which helps in understanding whether there's a consensus or if there are significant disagreements.
The judge must be cautious about potentially coercive instructions if the jury reports an impasse
In the event of an impasse, the judge has a delicate role balancing the encouragement of deliberations with avoiding undue pressure on the jury.
The "Allen charge" is a delicate instruction the judge can provide to encourage further deliberations
The judge may resort to an "Allen charge" if the jury struggles to reach a verdict. ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Jury Deliberations and the Judge's Role
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- An Allen charge, also known as a dynamite charge or a third-degree instruction, is a supplemental instruction given by a judge to a deadlocked jury to encourage them to continue deliberating to reach a verdict. It emphasizes the importance of reaching a unanimous decision without forcing jurors to abandon their honest beliefs. The purpose is to prevent mistrials due to hung juries by urging further discussion and consideration among jurors. The judge must carefully balance the encouragement for continued deliberation with avoiding coercion or undue pressure on the jurors.
- An impasse in the context of jury deliberations occurs when the jurors are unable to reach a unanimous decision. It signifies a deadlock or stalemate in their discussions. Judges may intervene cautiously to encourage further deliberations without unduly pressuring the jury. This situation prompts the judge to consider providing specific instructions, like an "Allen charge," to help the jury break the impasse.
- A court reporter is a professional responsible for transcribing spoken dialogue during legal proceedings using specialized equipment like a stenographic machine. They create official transcripts of court hearings, depositions, and other legal events. Court reporters require specific training and certification t ...
Counterarguments
- While jurors can ask questions and request read-backs, this process can sometimes lead to delays in the deliberation process and may not always clarify the issues at hand if the questions are not well-articulated or if the read-backs do not provide the expected clarity.
- The judge's management of jury queries, while intended to maintain order and fairness, can sometimes inadvertently influence the jury's perception of the evidence or the importance of certain aspects of the case.
- The judge's control over handling jury questions and requests could be seen as too restrictive, potentially limiting the jury's ability to access information they believe is necessary for their deliberations.
- Starting deliberations with a vote could potentially anchor jurors to their initial positions and make some jurors less open to changing their opinions after group discussion.
- The use of an "Allen charge" is con ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The Mar-a-Lago Case and Recent Developments
Recent developments in the Mar-a-Lago case have drawn attention, particularly concerning false statements made by former President Trump regarding the search warrant and responses from law enforcement and legal experts.
Trump made false claims about the search warrant and the use of force policy
Trump has made several inaccurate statements about the Department of Justice's actions during the Mar-a-Lago raid, specifically concerning the use of force policy.
Trump falsely alleged the DOJ authorized the use of deadly force, omitting key context from the policy
In a motion, Trump claimed that the DOJ, during the Mar-a-Lago raid, had authorized the FBI to use lethal force. Trump further fanned flames by sending emails and making public statements suggesting that the government was authorized to shoot him. His claims deliberately omitted the actual policy detail that deadly force is employed only when necessary to prevent imminent danger of death or serious physical injury. The distortion of facts by Trump was echoed by his followers, heightening inflammatory rhetoric around the search and leading to extreme claims. These allegations have been broadly recognized as a danger to legal personnel, with people like Merrick Garland speaking out to counter Trump’s false statements.
The government filed a motion to modify Trump's bail conditions to prohibit him from making such dangerous statements
Following these allegations, the Department of Justice filed a motion before Judge Aileen Cannon. They sought to restrict Trump from making public comments that could present a significant, imminent, and foreseeable danger to the agents involved in the investigation. However, Judge Cannon denied the DOJ's motion based on procedural issues regarding the meet and confer requirement rather than engaging with the significant safety risks presented.
Judge Cannon's handling of the government's motion raises concerns about her impartiality
Judge Cannon's rulings and potential bias have become a point of contention and could bring her further scrutiny from the appeals courts.
Cannon denied the government's motion on procedural grounds, despite the serious safety issues involved
Legal experts like Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord have expressed their views on the situation. Weissmann points out that the nature of the motions Trump's team is directing at Judge Cannon may indicate they see her as partial. The motion itself would seemingly not be made before a judge viewed as dispassionate. McCord notes that Cannon issued a paperless order through her clerk, which criticized the special counsel's efforts as lacking substance and failing to show professio ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The Mar-a-Lago Case and Recent Developments
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The Mar-a-Lago case involves a raid conducted by the FBI at the Mar-a-Lago resort owned by former President Trump. Trump made false claims about the Department of Justice authorizing the use of deadly force during the raid, leading to legal and safety concerns. Judge Cannon's handling of motions related to Trump's statements has raised questions about her impartiality and potential impact on the case's proceedings.
- Trump's false claims about the Department of Justice authorizing the use of deadly force during the Mar-a-Lago raid have raised concerns about the potential impact on law enforcement personnel and the legal process. These claims, which omitted key details about the use of force policy, have been criticized for their inflammatory nature and the risks they pose to the safety of agents involved in the investigation. The government's response, including seeking restrictions on Trump's public statements, highlights the seriousness of the situation and the need to address the potential dangers created by false allegations in a legal context. Judge Cannon's handling of the government's motion and the implications of her rulings on this matter have also sparked discussions about impartiality and the potential for higher court scrutiny in the future.
- Judge Aileen Cannon is responsible for presiding over legal matters related to the Mar-a-Lago case. She has the authority to make decisions on motions filed by the Department of Justice and other parties involved in the case. Her rulings can impact the course of the investigation and any legal proceedings that follow. Judge Cannon's decisions, including those related to bail conditions and motions filed by the government, play a crucial role in shaping the direction of the case.
- In the legal proceedings dis ...
Counterarguments
...
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
