Judge's Instructions 'Require' Jury Find Trump Guilty, His Ex-Lawyer Says - Newsweek
By: Matthew Impelli (Newsweek)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Donald Trump's ex-lawyer predicted this week that the former president will be found guilty in his ongoing criminal trial in Manhattan, citing the jury instructions given by New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan.
On Tuesday, former White House lawyer Ty Cobb spoke with Morgan Chalfant of Semafor about Trump's ongoing criminal trial where he is accused of making hush money payments to former adult film star Stormy Daniels in 2016.
"If the jury begins deliberations Tuesday afternoon, expect a verdict no later than Friday afternoon. I expect a "GUILTY" verdict, but only because the jury instructions as urged by the DA and adopted by the judge, over strenuous and well founded defense objections, virtually require conviction," Cobb said to Semafor.
"I reach this legal conclusion because of my long experience as a federal prosecutor and white collar defense lawyer, my reverence for the rule of law, and despite my view that Trump remains the greatest threat to Democracy in our nation's history," Cobb added.
Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media during his criminal trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City, on May 28, 2024. Former White House lawyer,...Former President Donald Trump speaks to the media during his criminal trial for allegedly covering up hush money payments at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City, on May 28, 2024. Former White House lawyer, Ty Cobb, said Trump will likely be found guilty, citing jury instructions as the reason. More STEVEN HIRSCH/POOL/AFP via Getty Images/Getty Images
Newsweek has reached out to Cobb for comment.
Trump appeared in court on Tuesday in New York for his ongoing criminal trial brought by District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Trump was indicted last April by Bragg, who said that the former president "fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information—including a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels—from the public during the 2016 presidential campaign."
Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, has continued to deny any wrongdoing in the case, repeatedly calling it and other criminal and civil cases against him politically motivated.
Closing arguments in the case began Tuesday morning, and a 12-person jury will begin their deliberations on Wednesday. But prior to handing it off to the panel, presiding Judge Juan Merchan will give jurors instructions on the law governing the case, a topic that was heavily debated by prosecutors and the defense team during the trial last week.
According to the Associated Press, the jury instructions could include details of what the jurors can and can not take into account when making their decision of guilt or innocence.
Newsweek's Katherine Fung, who has been inside the courtroom for Trump's trial, reported on Tuesday that the former president's attorney, Todd Blanche began his closing arguments by thanking the jurors for their service, being on time and paying close attention "all day, everyday ... we really appreciate that."
"President Trump is innocent," Blanche says. "He did not commit any crimes and the district attorney has not met the burden of proof, period." The evidence presented by prosecutors should leave jurors "wanting more."
Newsweek reached out to Trump's spokesperson via email for comment.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
No Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
582 visitors
Is the fix in?
"Is the fix in?"
Is the pope Catholic?
I'm wondering why the judge's instructions and an explanation from Cobb weren't in the article? I suppose that wouldn't get as many people worked up if they actually knew what they were talking about.
IF Cobb is correct and the judge's instructions are biased then Trump should easily win on appeal.
I'm wondering why the judge's instructions and an explanation from Cobb weren't
the judge refused to publish the transcript of the hearing where the instructions were argued. Cobb says the judge essentially let the prosecution write them, so there is no written record yet, only what the judge told the parties he would do.
that the judge ended up simply rubber stamped the prosecutions dream instructions is the most obvious of outcomes.
So you/we don't know what the judge really said to the jury? Only what the talking heads are filtering.
The parties know what the Judge will say.
huh? ...will say? So now the story has changed from what he did say to what he will say?
yes. That's how it works. The parties discuss the instructions with the judge and the judge decides what he will say at a hearing without the jury present. Then he reads the instructions to the jury after the closing arguments.
But WE only have what Cobb and other talking heads have to say. I'm sure if I looked around I could find sources to say the jury must find Trump innocent. Or any number of things... but personally I think I'll wait for the case to play out.
EDIT: without the posting of the actual instructions we can't accurately weigh in on if they are biased. Also article also doesn't mention whether Cobb believes the instructions to be legally correct or not. Without a lot more evidence we have to believe the process is NOT fixed and that any bias in the judge, or jury, (if it's really there - I've seen no direct evidence of either) will be corrected under appeal.
Cobb is a very connected lawyer who said "that Trump remains the greatest threat to Democracy in our nation's history," He's not some knee jerk Trump booster.
As I put in my edit after you posted (sorry about that)... Cobb never says (in the article anyway) if he believes the instructions were legally biased or legally correct. We are left guessing and I refuse to play that game.
Then why dont you listen to him ?
I do. When an expert says something that goes against their partisan interest, I take it seriously.
I find it interesting that with the title of, "Judge's Instructions 'Require' Jury Find Trump Guilty, His Ex-Lawyer Says - Newsweek", nowhere in the article are the actual instructions that the judge gave the jury.
Can anyone give an actual quote of those instruction?
Since they haven't been communicated, it would be rather difficult wouldn't you say?
YES Jim! Exactly!
So you clearly agree with Ozzwald's implied point, right?
The silence is deafening.
And now we know the judge's instructions were entirely standard ... nothing unusual.
Amazing how that always seems to happen. And the ones claiming otherwise have vanished.
where do you get this nonsense from?
Reality.
Hung Jury? Not like it couldn't be overturned on appeal for a number of reasons.
Where do you want them hung from?
Because I am sure that will be the reaction of TDS driven New Yorkers if the jury doesn't convict.
The judge has handed the prosecution the conviction.
Not sequestering the jury, especially right before closing arguments after a holiday weekend, allowed relatives, friends, and media to drive home that they are expected to convict. Forget the lack of evidence, witness tampering by the judge and prosecution, or the flimsiness of the case from the start.
Of rocks and hard places ... I'm 'sure' the BDS driven will claim the jury 'suffered' from TDS if he is convicted. However, all real blame will lie at Trump's and his inept lawyer's feet.
I will accept the results of this legal process whichever way it goes. Our system is imperfect (e.g. O.J. Simpson murder trial) but it mostly works and I doubt that there is a system of justice that can be 100% correct given the sketchy data and human judgment that it must deal with.
That said, I predict that if Trump is found guilty that most every Trump supporter will simply claim that this trial was rigged or offer some other excuse rather than accept that Trump actually did commit wrongdoing as per the guilty verdict.
I noticed the judge's instructions were NOT in the article. It's just another click bate headline...
I suspect we might have to wait for the judge to actual give the jury instructions before we know what they are. ( Partisanship today is so over the top; so much irrational 'thinking'. Just amazing, is it not? )
Considering the judge hasn't turned the case over to the jury yet, I'm assuming Cobb meant instructions during the trial, but Cobb doesn't illiterate what those are and why he thinks it would 'require' a guilty verdict. We are all left to make guesses.
And if Cobb was not referring to the official jury instructions (which precede deliberation) then he was being purposely misleading.
Him, or the writer of the article left out some stuff.
So EVERYBODY claiming the system is fucked up are automatically "Trump Supporters"? Nobody can be calling out a clown show for the sake of calling out a clown show .
Kind of narrow minded thinking.
As usual you misrepresent what I wrote and put forth a strawman.
No, Jeremy, JustJim, RdtC, Ronin, Ed, and Snuffy that is NOT what I wrote.
[deleted][✘]
I get it! Is it because being assumed a Trump Supporter is a bad thing? Because being called a MAGA is a huge insult? Okay!
It is a major step up from a Biden supporter.
Good one! 🤣
[✘]
Is "MAGA" like some sort of Scarlet Letter? Is it something shameful? If you are "Trump Supporters" just admit it...
See 3.2.6
[deleted][✘]
Yet you did not or would not answer me? Therefore we are left to take that as a definitive, "YES", to my queries. "MAGA" is shameful!
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
Of course you will. Democrats still have 3 bullets left in their lawfare gun.
Besides with this shit show kangaroo court in a Democrats controlled bastion of stupidity a guilty verdict is all but guaranteed.
I am not —nor have I ever been— a democrat. Again you use antagonistic bullshit in lieu of an argument.
Further, the other cases have essentially been delayed past the election.
I will accept the results because they are the conclusions of the best legal process we have. So even if I disagree, I will accept the results since I was not on the jury listening, observing, and deliberating on the evidence and the arguments.
That reminds me of an old quote:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
(Sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill, but apparently he was not the first to say it)
HOW?
I’m so tired of this bullshit where people claim this or that election/trial/or other legal process is fixed or fraudulent with ZERO proof.
As we can see here today, many of the posters have already made their mind up with nothing more than filtered propaganda and their own bias to fill in the blanks.