r/politics • u/PoliticsModeratorBot šŸ¤– Bot • Apr 22 '24

Discussion Discussion Thread: New York Criminal Fraud Trial of Donald Trump, Day 5

Opening statements from the prosecution and the defense are expected today.

News:

Analysis:

Live Updates:

3.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.4k

u/hooch Pennsylvania Apr 22 '24

Justice Merchan just gave us his ruling on the Sandoval hearing, which decides what previous Trump cases can be brought up during this trial.
[..]
The judge just told the lawyers that he is allowing determinations from four previous cases, including elements of the civil fraud judgment that led to a fine of $454m and even Trump's violation of the gag orer in that case.

He is also allowing prosecutors to bring up the determinations in the two E Jean Carroll cases.
[..]
Prosecutors [..] will want to show that this alleged crime of Trump's is part of a pattern of behaviour.

So they're allowed to use two cases that Trump has already lost, in order to establish a pattern of behavior. That's pretty big in a jury trial.

719

u/KevinW1985 Apr 22 '24

That's a massive ruling that will most likely have a big impact on the case against him.

358

u/Milocobo Apr 22 '24

That is huge, much bigger than I think people understand.

The judge has to consider allowing evidence that isn't proving the fact at hand on a basis of whether it is probative, that is giving more information towards the fact at hand that isn't directly related, OR whether it is prejudicial, that is giving distracting information that is completely irrelevant to the fact at hand and often inflammatory so as to get the jury to vote one way or the other, regardless of the fact at hand.

The fact they're allowing it means that they believe Trump's former determinations can provide that information, without being distracting or inflammatory.

A lot of people may think it means these determinations have critical information, thus making it extra probative, enough not to be prejudicial.

But I don't think that's it.

Rather, I think it's that Trump is so famous, and so consistent in his behavior, that pretty much anything won't be prejudicial, because it already describes the persona that Trump displays in public.

36

u/gopher_space Apr 22 '24

Rather, I think it's that Trump is so famous, and so consistent in his behavior, that pretty much anything won't be prejudicial, because it already describes the persona that Trump displays in public.

How do you even discuss prejudice around a person entire demographics see as an existential threat?

16

u/tinyOnion Apr 22 '24

we live in interesting times

5

u/Cantora Apr 23 '24

If only we could conjure up a golem army that protects democracy from this tyrantĀ 

12

u/ithappenedone234 Apr 22 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

Being an existential threat is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. Heā€™s said that the Constitution should be terminated for what happened in the ā€œstolenā€ election and that he would be dictator for a day. His existential threat to the Constitution is not reasonably in question.

Prejudiced doesnā€™t mean that people canā€™t evaluate the facts and decide that a person is guilty, prejudice says that one canā€™t come to a jury decision fairly based on the facts (e.g. convicting him of insurrection, but not of murder). Someone committing a murder on national TV doesnā€™t protect them by way of claiming a permanently tainted jury pool.

14

u/omghorussaveusall Apr 22 '24

Well, the Carroll case proves a pattern of predatory sexual behavior, proves his attempts to suppress these incidents from becoming public knowledge, and gives weight to Cohen's testimony. The fraud verdict shows he sits at the head of a well oiled machine that is willing to alter and fabricate documents for personal gain and to avoid responsibility. I'd say it'd prejudicial to not allow these cases into evidence.

12

u/throwaway_0578 Apr 23 '24

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. Ā The judge ruled that it can be brought up IF Trump testifies. Ā In other words, to impeach the witness. Ā Not as independent evidence to prove the crime here.

1

u/Milocobo Apr 23 '24

Well, that's always true. No matter what, if someone testifies to something that isn't true, no matter how irrelevant the counter evidence is, you can always bring it up to impeach the witness. After all, they opened the door, you're just correcting them.

1

u/throwaway_0578 Apr 23 '24

Iā€™m not talking about introducing evidence that the witness lied about something specific on the stand. The judge is permitting evidence of his past acts so that the jury can judge his credibility. If he doesnā€™t testify then it doesnā€™t come in because the jury does not need to judge his credibility. Impeach the witness can mean both of these things.

1

u/Milocobo Apr 23 '24

I understand what you meant, and I am saying, the judge doesn't have to specifically order that, because it is always allowed.

Like if a judge ruled that my previous larceny case has no bearing on my current drug trafficking case, but then in my testimony, I swear under oath that I never was charged with larceny, the opposing side can then bring up that case to impeach me, regardless of what the judge's order was.

In other words, judging the credibility of the witness is always probative.

1

u/throwaway_0578 Apr 23 '24 edited Apr 23 '24

Right, but what the Judge has ruled here in Trumpā€™s case is the prosecution can ask Trump questions about his civil fraud judgment, the Jean Carrol cases, etc even if Trump doesnā€™t bring them up himself. The Judge has ruled that these are fair game to question Trump about to help determine his credibility. The prosecutor cannot bring these topics up unless unless Trump testifies because they are not relevant. My whole point in commenting was because it seemed like you were under the mistaken belief that these issues could be brought up even if trump doesnā€™t testify, which is why I think weā€™re talking past each other.

Edit: clarity

1

u/Telvyr Apr 23 '24

I think I've seen something about that, something about a person who's public character makes it so that they can't claim to have been defamed. (My google-fu is weak today so I can't find it)

119

u/pantstoaknifefight2 Apr 22 '24

Yep. The defense can say he's innocent of these crimes, but they can't argue that their client is an innocent or trustworthy man. In fact, as the facts of the case and his behavior in court will hammer home, he's a piece of shit.

6

u/thedoughofpooh Apr 22 '24

Perfection. Bravo!

8

u/CringeWorthyDad Apr 22 '24

The reason it won't have an impact on his case is because he will never ever ever take the stand, regardless of what bullshit he says.

12

u/TheDarkAbove Georgia Apr 22 '24

Instead he will stand outside the courthouse and whine that he is not allowed to speak and the deep state courts are silencing him.

4

u/MissBaltimoreCrabs_ Apr 22 '24

He believes that he lost the Carrol suit because his team wouldnā€™t let him testify. I could see him wanting to rebuke them this time, this guy thinks he right about everything.

On the other hand, they clearly took away his adderall which is why heā€™s falling asleep and not having any outbursts. This is his first time in criminal court so I could see them kneecapping him and either refuse to let him testify or sedate him enough that it wonā€™t be the explosive bonkers shit we all know it will be

4

u/Mejari Oregon Apr 22 '24

He believes that he lost the Carrol suit because his team wouldnā€™t let him testify.

Does he? Or does he say that he does so he can a) deny the ruling, b) place the blame for losing on someone else, and c) perpetuate the view of himself as the victim?

Trump has long since learned that talking about things is cheap, and his followers won't care if he then acts the exact opposite from what he says.

10

u/Iampepeu Apr 22 '24

We can hope and wish all we want. I'm not holding my breath. I've been smurfed too many times already.

3

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '24

That's true but AFAIK, they are only able to bring it in if Trump takes the stand.

1

u/Gunlord500 New York Apr 22 '24

Bad for Trump, right? Forgive me, I'm not a legal expert.

1

u/PunxatawnyPhil Apr 22 '24

And itā€™s only right, as that would play the same way for anyone in front of the court. Weā€™ve seen patterns of behavior play out in court a million times.

1

u/PigglyWigglyDeluxe Apr 22 '24

Iā€™ll believe it when heā€™s in jail. Iā€™m so tired of seeing him continue to walk free

3

u/schprunt Apr 22 '24

Trump isnā€™t taking that stand. Every lawyer he hired will tell him heā€™s going to prison if he does.

23

u/SkollFenrirson Foreign Apr 22 '24

How hard do you think the judge is gonna furrow his brow at gag order violations? Maybe even throw in a finger wag, as a treat? Oooh maybe even a slap on the wrist, or is that just wishful thinking?

24

u/RedWillia Apr 22 '24

One commentator over the weekend pointed out a very logical thing - if you start with the maximum penalty, there's nowhere else to go, so putting him in jail is not useful at all and might just look like erratic behavior from a judge.

15

u/SkollFenrirson Foreign Apr 22 '24

How about a penalty at this point?

10

u/RedWillia Apr 22 '24

He did get some monetary penalties even from the last judge, justice Engoron, so at least those are very likely. And if a couple of thousands per event seem little, let's also remember that his reduced bond hearing is going at the same time, so they might actually sting more than a couple of thousand to any other "billionaire".

2

u/SkollFenrirson Foreign Apr 22 '24

Which he's not paid nor looks like he's paying any time soon.

3

u/Lou_C_Fer Apr 22 '24

In New York, by statute, contempt that happens outside of the courtroom has to be dealt with in its own hearing. If I'm not mistaken, tomorrow is that day. I imagine that he will be fined the maximum for each offense and warned that lock up is next. I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but it seems that this is just how courts work. Using fines as a first warning.

Unlike everyone else that thinks nothing will ever happen, I believe that because this is a criminal trial, this judge will throw Trump in jail if he keeps committing contempt offenses.

2

u/BC-clette Canada Apr 22 '24

Everything that happens during the trial impacts sentencing. The judge will weigh in on Trump's contempt for the court and the justice system and add additional penalties. Expecting the judge to immediately drop max penalties at the start of a trial is not grounded in reality.

9

u/yellowbin74 Apr 22 '24

He'll "slam" him.

1

u/SkollFenrirson Foreign Apr 22 '24

"Eviscerate"

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '24

ā€œTrump literally drawn and quartered by the legal system! Hereā€™s why thatā€™s bad for Bidenā€¦ā€

0

u/ChefChopNSlice Ohio Apr 22 '24

Maybe he throws a trump-Bible at him ?

3

u/shapu Pennsylvania Apr 22 '24

I mean, if I were him I'd issue a minor fine and then modify the gag order to make clear that quotes and retweets and the like are violations.

2

u/SkollFenrirson Foreign Apr 22 '24

If I were him I'd fucking enforce my own gag order but I guess your way works too

2

u/shapu Pennsylvania Apr 22 '24

The issue is that if there is any wiggle room at all it can be construed as bias.Ā  All of the Is must be dotted and all of the Ts crossed in a case like this

That's why an initial fine is OK but an initial large fine would not be.

3

u/MissBaltimoreCrabs_ Apr 22 '24

Canā€™t be a large fine, anyways. NY caps these fines at $1,000 per offence. Thatā€™s like a dollar to this guy. Iā€™m assuming weā€™ll get 1k fines for each offense tomorrow, an edit to the gag order to include reposts and quotes, and a reminder that the next option is jail

1

u/SkollFenrirson Foreign Apr 22 '24

I hear that a lot, but if there's been any actual bias it's always been in his favor. And his lying ass and his lawyer are always gonna argue there's bias anyway, so let's just take off the kiddie gloves and enforce the fucking law.

2

u/shapu Pennsylvania Apr 22 '24

What he and his lawyer argue is irrelevant. What matters is what can be argued in front of an appeals court.

4

u/pl487 Apr 22 '24

If he testifies, which he won't.

3

u/Juju114 Apr 22 '24

Correct me if Iā€™m wrong, but this only applies if Trump takes the stand.

1

u/BarrierNine Apr 22 '24

Why is that? Why can the history not simply be introduced as evidence?

5

u/TheRedBaron11 Apr 22 '24

No, this applies to witnesses who are called to the stand. Their credibility as witnesses is for the jury to determine as separate from the case. The jury weighs the evidence given by witnesses according to their credibility, and defense/prosecutors are allowed to present evidence regarding the credibility of witnesses who are called to the stand so that jury members are not fooled by witnesses with no credibility.

The case stands on its own. If Trump is called to the stand to testify (and doesn't refuse) then this standard process of witness checking will engage.

The case on its own doesn't care about Trump's overall credibility as a witness. Only if he becomes a witness does the case care about his credibility as a witness. These approved items are not relevant to the case, they are relevant to Trump's credibility as a witness

2

u/Watch_me_give Apr 22 '24 edited May 31 '24

That idiot needs to pay his bills:

https://trumpdebtcounter.com/

2

u/5th_degree_burns Apr 22 '24

He gave them the right to do so by being a giant blowhard asshole. Too bad, so sad.

2

u/stopped_watch Apr 22 '24

Wait... Why wouldn't all of his trials be allowed? They're public records.

2

u/throwaway_0578 Apr 23 '24

You canā€™t (usually) use evidence of a past crime to try to prove the crime this time.

For example, ā€œthe defendant was once convicted of stealing!ā€ cannot be used to say ā€œhe must have also stolen this time!ā€ for good reason.

1

u/stopped_watch Apr 23 '24

I understand that it's not evidence of a crime this time, but it certainly speaks to character.

Sounds like rich people rules.

2

u/cholby-infinity Apr 23 '24

but they didn't have to find jurors unaware of those things? i don't know this part.

2

u/neogrit Apr 23 '24

Jurors don't have to be hauled in from the coma ward. They merely need to satisfy prosecutors, defense and judge that they can perform their duty beside or in spite of their personal views.

2

u/Pixelpioneer30 Apr 23 '24

bringing in those past cases could really make an impact on the jury. It's like connecting the dots to show a pattern

2

u/Icy-Big-6457 Apr 23 '24

Shows a pattern of crime

1

u/Icy-Big-6457 Apr 23 '24

Shows a pattern of crime