Jury begins deliberating in Trump hush money trial
In the first part of this episode, the jury in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial is examined for their thoroughness and impartiality. Discussion centers on their requests for key testimony review and clarification on "unlawful means," indicating a commitment to carefully considering the evidence before reaching a verdict.
The second part shifts to the Mar-a-Lago case, where Judge Cannon faces criticism for her perceived reluctance to make decisive rulings and her approach favoring delays over addressing the merits of the case. The implications of Trump's perceived legal strategy of obstruction and the necessity of appeals to higher courts are also explored.
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
Jury Deliberations in Donald Trump's New York Criminal Trial
The jury in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial exhibits thoroughness, requesting to review key testimonies by David Pecker and Michael Cohen, according to Adam Klasfeld. The jury also asked the judge to reiterate legal instructions, especially regarding "unlawful means," suggesting careful contemplation of the evidence.
Understanding "Unlawful Means"
Katie Phang notes the jury need not unanimously agree on the specific unlawful means Trump employed. The judge's instructions allow flexibility in considering actions like falsifying records, violating election laws, or misleading tax documents as potential unlawful means, an approach Trump's own lawyer did not contest.
Implications of the Jury's Approach
Klasfeld observes the jury's diligence makes it less likely they will simply acquit Trump without thorough examination. Phang adds their scrutiny of Pecker's testimony implies considering the prosecution's arguments impartially. Their request for clarity on accomplice testimony laws enhances the possibility of conviction if the evidence substantiates the charges.
Procedural Issues in the Mar-a-Lago Case
In the separate Mar-a-Lago documents case, Judge Cannon denied a motion by the special counsel to restrict Trump's inflammatory statements, criticizing lack of conferral with Trump's team despite claims otherwise, notes Katie Phang.
Andrew Weissmann condemns Cannon's reluctance to make decisive rulings, accusing her of disregarding law enforcement safety. Bradley Moss hopes the Justice Department preemptively addresses Cannon's concerns when refiling the motion.
Weissmann and Phang suggest Cannon's cautious, deferential approach aligns with Trump's perceived legal strategy of delay and obstruction rather than addressing merits, necessitating appeals to higher courts.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The jury's requests for review and legal instructions in Donald Trump's New York criminal trial indicate their thorough examination of evidence and a careful consideration of the law. By asking to revisit key testimonies and seek clarity on legal definitions like "unlawful means," the jury shows a commitment to understanding the case complexities. This diligence suggests they are unlikely to rush to a verdict and are focused on evaluating the evidence impartially. The requests for additional information and guidance enhance the possibility of a well-informed decision based on a comprehensive understanding of the legal aspects of the case.
- "Unlawful means" in the legal context of the trial encompass actions like falsifying records, violating election laws, or misleading tax documents. The jury does not need to unanimously agree on the specific unlawful means Trump employed, as the judge's instructions allow flexibility in interpreting these actions. Trump's lawyer did not contest this approach during the trial. The consideration of various potential unlawful means by the jury indicates a broad scope of evaluation in determining Trump's guilt.
- Judge Cannon's actions in the Mar-a-Lago case involved denying a motion by the special counsel to restrict Trump's statements. Critics like Katie Phang noted that Judge Cannon's decisions seemed to align with a cautious and deferential approach, which some interpreted as favoring Trump's legal strategy of delay and obstruction. Andrew Weissmann criticized Judge Cannon for what he perceived as reluctance to make decisive rulings, suggesting a potential impact on law enforcement safety. Bradley Moss expressed hope that the Justice Department would address Judge Cannon's concerns when re-filing the motion.
Counterarguments
- The jury's request to review key testimonies and legal instructions could indicate confusion or uncertainty rather than thoroughness.
- The flexibility in considering what constitutes "unlawful means" could lead to a lack of legal clarity and consistency in the verdict.
- The jury's diligence does not guarantee a conviction or acquittal; it simply reflects their commitment to understanding the case.
- Scrutiny of Pecker's testimony does not necessarily imply impartial consideration; it could also suggest skepticism or disbelief of the prosecution's arguments.
- Requesting clarity on accomplice testimony laws might not enhance the possibility of conviction; it could also lead to a more informed and potentially more skeptical view of such testimony.
- Judge Cannon's denial of the motion to restrict inflammatory statements could be seen as upholding the principles of free speech and due process.
- Criticism of Judge Cannon's reluctance to make decisive rulings may overlook the complexity of the legal issues involved and the importance of judicial caution.
- The perception of Cannon's approach as aligning with Trump's legal strategy could be challenged by the argument that a judge's duty is to the law, not to expedite the interests of either party.
- Appeals to higher courts are a standard part of the legal process and do not necessarily indicate a problem with the lower court's rulings.
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Jury deliberations and evidence review in the New York criminal trial against Donald Trump
During the trial against Donald Trump in New York, the jury demonstrates a meticulous approach in their deliberations by requesting a review of crucial evidence and seeking a deeper understanding of the legal instructions related to the case.
The jury is closely examining key prosecution evidence and witness testimony
The jury showcases thoroughness in their examination of evidence as they make four requests to review damaging witness testimonies by David Pecker, a tabloid mogul, and Michael Cohen, the prosecution's star witness.
The jury has requested to review testimony from David Pecker and Michael Cohen, which could corroborate the prosecution's case
They sought to revisit Pecker's phone call with Trump regarding Karen McDougal, his decision to withdraw from the deal to transfer McDougal's life rights to Michael Cohen, and both witnesses' accounts of the Trump Tower meeting in August of 2015. David Pecker's testimony, where he discussed an agreement with Trump with Michael Cohen executing the instructions, was left uncontested after Trump's counsel chose not to cross-examine his credibility. This resulted in the jury giving serious consideration to his uncontested testimony. Moreover, they expressed an interest in recalling David Pecker's testimony despite it being weeks since they first heard from him.
The jury has also asked to re-hear the judge's instructions on the legal concepts, indicating they are carefully considering the complex legal issues
The jury's meticulous nature emerged again as they requested to listen once more to the detailed legal instructions provided by the judge, particularly those involving concepts such as "unlawful means," which play a notable role in the proceedings. The jurors sent a note to Judge Murchant asking to rehear some of his instructions, prompting him to inquire if they need the entire set of jury instructions again or just particular sections.
The jury's actions suggest they are diligently evaluating the evidence, not simply dismissing the prosecution's case
The jury's requests for clarification on ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Jury deliberations and evidence review in the New York criminal trial against Donald Trump
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- David Pecker, a tabloid mogul, testified about a phone call with Trump regarding Karen McDougal, his decision to withdraw from a deal involving Michael Cohen, and details about the Trump Tower meeting in 2015. Michael Cohen, a key witness for the prosecution, corroborated Pecker's testimony about an agreement with Trump executed by Cohen. Pecker's uncontested testimony, especially about the agreement with Trump, was given serious consideration by the jury. The jury requested to review these testimonies to understand their significance in the case.
- The judge in a trial is responsible for ensuring that the proceedings are conducted fairly and according to the law. They make ruli ...
Counterarguments
...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Legal concepts and jury instructions in the case, such as the "unlawful means" requirement
Adam Klasfeld and Katie Phang discuss key legal concepts in a case involving Donald Trump, centering on the jury instruction regarding "unlawful means" and its implications for the jury's decision-making process.
The judge's instructions on "unlawful means" provide the jury flexibility in determining how Trump's actions constituted a crime
During the trial, the jury sought clarity on instructions related to "unlawful means." The judge's instructions provide the jury with considerable flexibility in deciding how Trump's actions may have constituted a crime. Trump's attorney, Emil Bove, acknowledged to the judge that it is not typically required for the jury to make a very specific finding of the unlawful means.
The instructions do not require the jury to unanimously agree on the specific unlawful means, allowing them to consider multiple ways Trump's actions were criminal
Katie Phang explains that jurors are not required to unanimously agree upon the specific unlawful means that may have been used for Donald Trump to allegedly commit a felony, which allows the jury to contemplate different ways in which the crime could have been committed. The options available for the jury to consider as the "unlawful means" include a rang ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Legal concepts and jury instructions in the case, such as the "unlawful means" requirement
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The jury in the case involving Donald Trump is not required to unanimously agree on the specific unlawful means he may have used to commit a crime. This flexibility allows the jury to consider various actions by Trump that could potentially be deemed criminal. The potential unlawful means being considered range from falsifying business records to violations of federal election law and misleading tax documents. Trump's attorney did not contest this approach during the trial, indicating it is a standard legal practice.
- The term "unlawful means" in this case refers to the actions or methods that could have been used by Donald Trump to commit a crime. The jury's understanding of how Trump's actions could constitute a crime hi ...
Counterarguments
- The flexibility provided by the judge's instructions on "unlawful means" could potentially lead to a lack of specificity in the jury's understanding of the crime, which might undermine the precision of legal determinations.
- Not requiring the jury to unanimously agree on the specific "unlawful means" could result in a fragmented verdict where jurors are not fully aligned on the nature of the criminal act, potentially affecting the perceived fairness of the trial.
- While Trump's lawyer did not contest the instructions, it does not necessarily imply that the instruction is standard or uncontroversial; it could a ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Implications and significance of the jury's actions and requests during deliberations
The jury’s careful review of evidence and their requests for legal clarifications suggest a thorough and diligent approach in the courtroom, underscoring the significance of their actions during deliberations.
The jury's close examination of key prosecution evidence, like Pecker and Cohen's testimony, indicates they are not dismissing this evidence out of hand
Katie Phang highlights that the jury's request to closely examine David Pecker's testimony suggests they are considering the weight of the prosecution's arguments and seeking to understand how Pecker's evidence might corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony. This level of attention to precise details, potentially pivotal to the case, is indicative of a jury taking a balanced approach rather than dismissing the prosecution's case out of hand.
This suggests the jury is taking a balanced approach and seeking to thoroughly understand the full scope of the prosecution's case
The jury’s actions to revisit key testimonies not only reveal an attentiveness to evidence but also suggest an impartiality and a desire to delve into the complexities of the case. Their interest in the nuances of why the National Enquirer did not sell Karen McDougal’s life rights, and the decision to tear up the agreement, highlights their resolve to piece together the intricacies of the alleged conspiracy.
The jury's requests for clarification on legal instructions demonstrate their diligence in properly applying the law to the facts
The jury's deliberate requests for the judge to rehear instructions reinforces their conscientiousness in trying to correctly apply the law. Adam Klasfeld notes the possibility of the jury seeking further explanation, especially regarding the "unlawful means" instruction, showin ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Implications and significance of the jury's actions and requests during deliberations
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- David Pecker and Michael Cohen are figures associated with former President Donald Trump. Pecker is the CEO of American Media, which owns the National Enquirer tabloid, and Cohen is a former lawyer for Trump. Their testimonies could be crucial in legal cases involving Trump, as they may provide insights into various alleged activities or dealings involving the former president.
- Karen McDougal's life rights typically pertain to the exclusive rights to tell her life story, including any personal experiences, relationships, or events she wishes to share. These rights can involve the control and authorization of any media projects, such as books, movies, or documentaries, based on her life. In legal terms, owning one's life rights allows an individual to dictate how their story is portrayed and used in various forms of entertainment or media. These rights are often sought after by producers and publishers looking to create content based on a person's life experiences.
- The "unlawful means" instruction typically relates to the legal definition of what constitutes illegal actions or methods in a case. It guides the jury on how to consider evidence that involves activities deemed unlawful under the law. This instruction helps jurors understand how certain actions or behaviors may be classified as illegal and how such actions could impact the case's outcome. Understanding this instruction is crucial for jurors to properly assess whether the evidence pres ...
Counterarguments
- While the jury's review of evidence and requests for clarification may suggest diligence, it could also indicate confusion or lack of understanding of the legal instructions, which may not necessarily lead to a more accurate or just outcome.
- The jury's close examination of testimonies like Pecker and Cohen's does not guarantee that they are giving these pieces of evidence the appropriate weight or interpreting them correctly.
- A balanced approach by the jury is ideal, but there is always the possibility of unconscious bias or external influences affecting their perception and interpretation of the case.
- Requests for legal clarifications, while indicative of diligence, could also suggest that the instructions were not clear enough in the first place, which could be a reflection of the complexity of the law or the wa ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
Procedural issues and rulings in the separate Mar-a-Lago documents case against Trump
In the ongoing Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Donald Trump, procedural issues and rulings have consistently drawn attention, notably the involvement of Judge Aileen Cannon.
Judge Cannon's recent ruling denying a motion by the special counsel to restrict Trump's public statements about the case
Judge Cannon faced scrutiny after she recently denied a motion put forward by Jack Smith, the special counsel. The motion sought to restrict inflammatory public statements by Donald Trump regarding the case as a response to his claim that a document included in the Mar-a-Lago search warrant was an assassination plot. Cannon rebuffed the motion, criticizing the prosecutor for not sufficiently conferring with Trump's defense team.
Cannon rebuked the special counsel for not properly conferring with the defense, despite the prosecutor's claim that the defense did not view the issue as an emergency
Cannon did not immediately respond to the motion, instead instructing Smith's team to engage more with Trump's legal team and present a better-founded justification for the request. Cannon's response has been criticized as it seems to accord with Trump's legal approach, which allegedly leans towards delay and obstruction.
The ruling has been especially contentious given the gravity of the allegations in the motion concerning law enforcement safety. Katie Phang, among others, highlighted the significance, questioning whether considerations around the First Amendment played a role in Cannon's delay.
Cannon's cautious, deferential approach to Trump's legal laywer team has repeatedly drawn criticism and been overturned on appeal
Cannon’s handling of the case has been characterized by a pattern of cautious and deferential rulings favoring Trump's legal team, drawing repeated criticism.
Her reluctance to make decisive rulings, even on minor matters, has allowed the case to become bogged down in unresolved issues
Andrew Weissmann admonished Cannon's hesitancy to take decisive action and noted that her decision to delay the special counsel's motion might be appealed to the 11th Circuit Court. He dismissed the need for the conferral Cannon requested and accused her of displayin ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Procedural issues and rulings in the separate Mar-a-Lago documents case against Trump
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Judge Aileen Cannon is presiding over the Mar-a-Lago documents case against former President Donald Trump. She has faced criticism for her rulings favoring Trump's legal team and her cautious approach to the case. Cannon's decisions, like denying a motion to restrict Trump's public statements, have drawn attention for potentially aligning with Trump's legal strategy. Her handling of the case has been characterized by delays and deferential treatment towards Trump's defense.
- The special counsel filed a motion to restrict Donald Trump's public statements about the Mar-a-Lago documents case. This motion aimed to prevent Trump from making inflammatory remarks, particularly in response to his claim about an alleged assassination plot in a document related to the case. The special counsel sought limitations on Trump's public statements to avoid potential interference with the legal proceedings and to maintain the integrity of the case. The motion was denied by Judge Cannon, who criticized the lack of sufficient communication between the special counsel and Trump's defense team.
- Judge Cannon's rulings in the Mar-a-Lago documents case against Trump have faced criticism for being cautious and deferential towards Trump's legal team, potentially hinderi ...
Counterarguments
- Judge Cannon's denial of the motion to restrict Trump's public statements could be seen as upholding the principles of free speech and the First Amendment.
- The rebuke of the special counsel for not conferring with the defense could be interpreted as an effort to ensure due process and fair play in legal proceedings.
- Cannon's instruction for the special counsel to engage more with Trump's legal team might be viewed as promoting thorough communication and avoiding misunderstandings or misrepresentations in court.
- Criticism of Cannon's response aligning with Trump's legal approach could be countered by the argument that a judge's role is to be impartial and to ensure all parties follow legal procedures, regardless of how it may appear.
- The contention around the gravity of the allegations in the motion concerning law enforcement safety could be met with the perspective that the judge must balance potential harms against constitutional rights.
- Cannon's cautious and deferential approach might be defended as judicious prudence, ensuring that all decisions are well-considered and legally sound.
- The reluctance to make decisive rulings on minor matters could be seen as a careful consideration of all factors involved, rather than an attempt to bog down the process.
- Criticism from Andrew Weissmann could be countered by the view that a judge's primary responsibility is to the integrity of the legal process, not to the expediency of law enforcement or prosecutorial objectives.
- The accusation of a disregard for the safety of law enforcement could be met with the argument that the judge is also consid ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
1-Page Summary- Jury deliberations and evidence review in the New York criminal trial against Donald Trump
- Legal concepts and jury instructions in the case, such as the "unlawful means" requirement
- Implications and significance of the jury's actions and requests during deliberations
- Procedural issues and rulings in the separate Mar-a-Lago documents case against Trump
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
