Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter Readers. It’s been another busy week in People v. Trump. Starting with that of the suspect 10th contempt, it featured striking testimony from Stormy Daniels, as prosecutors built their case with documents moving forward Michael Cohen‘s grand entrance. The confrontation between Donald Trump and his former fixer is scheduled for Monday in Manhattan.
That tenth contempt The finding started the week with the latest ruling on a silence order against the defendant. Judge Juan Merchan said a statement Trump made to jurors last month violated the court order restricting his threatening speech. Merchan said the jail wasn’t necessary yet, but it might be next time. The threat of prison lingered for the rest of the week, as did the rest of the trial.
In that trial, jurors saw documents and drama, with witnesses ranging from dry but important to more voluptuous with Daniels’ appearance. In addition to the adult film actress, prosecutors presented evidence of the falsified corporate records that Trump allegedly used to cover up the hush money scheme.
They also highlighted Trump’s books who, in his own words, portrayed him as an obsessive financial micromanager. The implication is that it is impossible that someone so obsessive would not have known about the plan. Expect prosecutors to highlight the presumptive Republican nominee’s damning writings in summary form.
And then there was Daniels. She described her alleged sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, when she was 27 and he was 60, and how she was paid to suppress her story ahead of the 2016 election. When you see her testimony, it’s understandable why Trump wanted to silence her, especially right after the “Access Hollywood” fiasco. Merchan complained that the witness’s testimony was too detailed (which is strange considering the defense says she is lying), but he rejected Trump’s mistrial on this point.
Instead, the defense was abandoned with an aggressive cross-examination that might have inadvertently humanized Daniels. Trump attorney Susan Necheles apparently edited what my MSNBC colleague Lisa Rubin said called a “nuts and sluts” defense to try to discredit the porn star. That approach may have backfired, but we’ll see what the jury says.
Michael Cohen is the next major witness to testify, likely on Monday. There has been a lot of discussion about his credibility, and that is not a non-issue. But I don’t think this is the ultimate problem, as prosecutors have been methodically building their case over the past few weeks. Jurors have already heard that other witnesses not only denigrate Cohen but at least partially corroborate his likely testimony about the scheme.
That doesn’t mean Cohen’s testimony will not be controversial – perhaps even more so than Daniels’. The most important action could come in the parts of his testimony that are not corroborated, such as conversations with Trump that amount to direct evidence of his guilt, because intent is crucial in this case. When Cohen is crucified, remember this question: Even if one point makes him look bad, does it diminish Trump’s guilt?
The prosecutor can rest next week, as they told Merchan on Friday that they expect to have two more witnesses. From there, the question will be what kind of case the defense wants to bring, including whether Trump himself testifies. Remember, the burden is on the prosecutor to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense is not in trouble, but we’ll see if this defendant can help himself.
In the meantime we were reminded that this case could be the only criminal trial against Trump. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely postponed a trial over classified documents, prompting my MSNBC colleague Steve Benen to aptly recall Trump mentor Roy Cohn’s famous quote: “Don’t tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is.” In Georgia, the state appeals court takes up the defense to disqualify Fani Willis, further casting any trial in Fulton County into doubt.
In Trump’s Washington DC case, we are still waiting that the Supreme Court will issue the immunity ruling that halted a federal lawsuit against election interference. The justices handed down decisions on copyright and civil forfeiture on Thursday. In addition to unnecessarily strengthening police forfeiture regimes in the latter case, these rulings remind us that the court is in no rush to have Trump tried in DC.
We expect more statements on Thursday from the judges as Manhattan prosecutors potentially wrap up their case.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for weekly updates on the top legal stories, including Supreme Court news, the Donald Trump cases and more.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
