Update from Kate Christobek (2024)

Pinned

The judge’s instructions will be a road map for the jury weighing Trump’s fate.

Mr. Trump’s fate is in the hands of those 12 New Yorkers, who will weigh whether to brand him as a felon. It could take them hours, days or even weeks to reach a verdict, a decision that could reshape the nation’s legal and political landscapes. And while the country anxiously awaits their judgment, Mr. Trump will continue to campaign for the presidency.

The moment that deliberations began marked a transfer of power from the experts in the courtroom — the lawyers arguing the case and the judge presiding over it — to the everyday New Yorkers who forfeited weeks of their lives to assess a mountain of evidence about sex and scandal.

The jurors, who spent more than four hours deliberating on Wednesday without reaching a verdict, meet around a long table in an unremarkable room with unforgiving lighting and walls painted a hue best described as municipal. Located off a small hallway behind the courtroom, it is steps from the jury box and has a door at each end, outside of which a court officer stands guard.

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, had invited the jurors to send him a note if they were confused about the law, or wanted to revisit testimony from the trial. And they took him up on the offer, buzzing the court officer to relay a message requesting four excerpts from the testimony.

On Thursday, a court reporter will read that testimony to the jury, most of which comes from David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer, who prosecutors say was part of a conspiracy to suppress unflattering stories on Mr. Trump’s behalf during the 2016 election. Another portion of testimony relates to Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former fixer who was the prosecution’s star witness.

Before the jurors began deliberating Wednesday, Justice Merchan delivered an array of legal instructions to guide their decision-making. He impressed on them the gravity of their task but also said that the defendant — even a former president — is their peer.

“As a juror, you are asked to make a very important decision about another member of the community,” Justice Merchan said, referring to the defendant.

The case exposed what prosecutors from the Manhattan district attorney’s office described as a fraud on the American people. It is one of four criminal cases against Mr. Trump, but most likely the only one that will go to trial before Election Day.

The Manhattan charges stem from a hush-money deal that Mr. Trump’s fixer, Michael D. Cohen, struck with a p*rn star in the final days of the 2016 presidential campaign. Prosecutors charged Mr. Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, saying he disguised his reimbursem*nt of Mr. Cohen as ordinary legal expenses.

The jurors, seven men and five women, hail from different neighborhoods of the nation’s largest city and hold a wide variety of jobs, representing a cross-section of Manhattan. Many have advanced degrees, and the panel may be aided by the two members who are lawyers, though neither appears to have criminal experience, and one said during jury selection that he knew “virtually nothing about criminal law.”

On Wednesday morning, Justice Merchan laid out the legal instructions to guide their discussions. He described to them the legal meaning of the word “intent” and the concept of the presumption of innocence. He also reminded the jurors that they had pledged to set aside any biases against the former president before they were sworn in, and that Mr. Trump’s decision not to testify cannot be held against him.

Then, Justice Merchan explained each of the 34 charges of falsifying business records that Mr. Trump faces, one for each document the prosecution says that Mr. Trump falsified. It was the most important guidance that the judge offered during the trial. And it was no simple task.

In New York, falsifying records is a misdemeanor, unless the documents were faked to hide another crime. The other crime, prosecutors say, was Mr. Trump’s violation of state election law that prohibited conspiring to aid a political campaign using “unlawful means” — a crime they say he committed during his 2016 campaign for president.

Those means, prosecutors argue, could include any of a menu of other crimes. And so each individual false-records charge that Mr. Trump faces contains within it multiple possible crimes that jurors must strive to understand.

Justice Merchan explained which document each count pertained to, referring to each of the 34 records — 11 invoices from Mr. Cohen, 12 entries in the Trump Organization’s general ledger and 11 checks, nine of them signed by Mr. Trump.

Marc F. Scholl, who served nearly 40 years in the district attorney’s office, noted that jury instructions are often difficult to follow, particularly given that, in New York, jurors are barred from keeping a copy of the guidance as they deliberate. And he said that defendants are often charged with several different crimes, requiring even more elaborate instructions.

Still, Mr. Scholl said, one point of complexity stood out in the Trump case: “Usually you don’t have this layering of these other crimes.”

Justice Merchan encouraged jurors, if they find themselves confused by legal arcana, to send him a note seeking clarification, and in addition to their request for testimony, they asked the judge to repeat his instructions. “He recognizes it’s a lot to take in,” Mr. Scholl said.

If convicted, Mr. Trump would face a sentence ranging from probation to four years in prison — although he would be certain to appeal, a process that could take years.

Compared with the instructions, the trial testimony was relatively straightforward. Prosecutors called 20 witnesses as they sought to convince jurors that Mr. Trump had hatched the election conspiracy with his former personal lawyer and fixer, Mr. Cohen, and the publisher of a supermarket tabloid, The National Enquirer, David Pecker.

The first witness, Mr. Pecker, testified that in a 2015 meeting at Trump Tower, he had agreed to suppress unflattering stories on behalf of Mr. Trump’s candidacy. He did so twice, he said. He paid a former Trump Organization doorman and a former Playboy model to keep silent after learning that both of them had damaging stories to sell about the candidate.

But Mr. Pecker did not pay for the third — and potentially the most damaging — story that came to his attention. That story belonged to Stormy Daniels, a p*rn star who said that she had a sexual encounter with Mr. Trump 10 years earlier, a story that she repeated from the witness stand and that Mr. Trump has always denied.

The final prosecution witness, Mr. Cohen, testified that Mr. Trump had ordered him to pay Ms. Daniels to keep silent. Mr. Cohen obeyed, sending $130,000 to Ms. Daniels in the days before the election.

After he won, Mr. Cohen said, Mr. Trump approved the plan to falsify the reimbursem*nt records.

Defense lawyers repeatedly sought to paint Mr. Cohen as an inveterate liar out for revenge against the boss who spurned him.

On Wednesday, Justice Merchan told the jury that the law considers Mr. Cohen an accomplice “because there is evidence that he participated in a crime, based upon conduct involved in the allegations here against the defendant.”

But he also told the jurors that “even if you find the testimony of Michael Cohen to be believable, you may not convict the defendant solely upon that testimony, unless you also find that it was corroborated by other evidence.”

Justice Merchan then proceeded through each of the 34 charges count by count to explain what prosecutors had needed to prove. The knotty legal instructions were the product of intense argument between the prosecution and the defense, culminating in a hearing last week in which each side sought to persuade the judge to make minor edits that they hoped would have a major impact.

The result was a compromise, with both sides securing some victories.

In one important decision, the judge rejected a defense request that jurors be unanimous on which “unlawful means” Mr. Trump had used to aid his election win. That request would have made reaching a verdict far more difficult.

Prosecutors argued that would be special treatment and that the former president should be treated like any other defendant. Mr. Trump’s lawyers argued that while the law did not require such unanimity, Justice Merchan could nonetheless ask for it.

“What you’re asking me to do is change the law, and I’m not going to do that,” Justice Merchan told Mr. Trump’s lawyers.

The scene outside the courthouse mellows a little as deliberations start. Sort of.

Her destination: Collect Pond Park, the square plot of cement and trees across Centre Street from the front doors of the Manhattan Criminal Courthouse, where a few hours later a group of 12 New Yorkers began deliberating whether to convict Donald J. Trump in the first criminal trial of an American president.

“I didn’t come strictly for this, but it fit in perfectly,” Ms. Frybarger, 73, said, holding up the “Lock Him Up!!!” poster she had made back home in San Jose.

As Mr. Trump’s trial has unfurled through its various stages, the park has played host to a daily tableau of New York writ small — gawkers and tourists, politicians and celebrities, demonstrators and protesters, all of whom have stood for hours in the baking sun and driving rain, to see and be seen.

Ms. Frybarger arrived around 6 a.m., she said, early enough to witness the spectacle — if a somewhat muted version — that has accompanied the proceedings.

The throng of protesters and demonstrators and hecklers that typically scream, whistle and clang cowbells to disrupt on-air broadcasts was conspicuously quieter. A group of women in Trump-themed clothing gathered in a serene circle and prayed, sang and wept. Another woman blew a shofar. Reporters threatened to outnumber demonstrators. Influencers held iPhones aloft, filming every little interaction to fulfill their content needs in the streaming era.

Scott LoBaido, a Staten Island-based artist, and his partner in spectacle, Dion Cini, unveiled a painting that depicted Mr. Trump as Muhammad Ali standing triumphant, recreating the famous photo of Ali’s knockout of Sonny Liston. Mr. LoBaido, who painted what he called his “masterpiece,” reimagined Liston as Robert De Niro. Mr. LoBaido said he was inspired by what he described as Mr. De Niro’s “insanity” on Tuesday, when the actor accused Mr. Trump of threatening democracy.

A few dissenting anti-Trump voices made dramatic appearances. Vivica Jimenez, 50, a fashion designer, photobombed Trump supporters with a handwritten sign that said “CHARLATANS” before being pelted with insults.

Ms. Jimenez said she had followed the trial since the start and felt she had to finally make a statement. “I’m not afraid to be here,” she added.

As the hours passed on Wednesday, the crowd started thinning, as if recognizing, perhaps, the importance of conserving energy with the timing of a verdict unclear. But the animosity that has surrounded the trial over these last seven weeks was still present: Skirmishes broke out between Trump supporters and counterprotesters, with one turning physical.

As two anti-Trump demonstrators, Kathleen Zea and Julie DeLaurier, ventured into a warren of Trump supporters, a group of shouting men and women wearing “Make America Great Again” garb surrounded them, attempting to block them from view with Trump flags. Ms. Zea said a woman had grabbed her anti-Trump sign and jabbed her with a pro-Trump flag, causing bruising and a laceration.

“I’ve never had that happen,” said Ms. Zea, an activist who lives in Astoria, Queens. “We yell at each other, but I never had a hand put on me — I was being attacked.”

The police intervened and broke up the fracas. They escorted Ms. Zea and Ms. DeLaurier out of the park as a battery of pro-Trump demonstrators followed, shouting insults and wishing them deportation and death. A similar scene unspooled across the afternoon with at least three other anti-Trump demonstrators.

Ms. Frybarger, too, got into a shouting match with pro-Trump demonstrators on the other side of the park, but her experience ended peacefully — or at least not in violence. She wandered over to talk with some of them, and a crowd formed around her, with a police officer ordering the demonstrators not to touch her sign. After some tense exchanges over Mr. Trump’s and President Biden’s respective policies in office, Ms. Frybarger and the pro-Trump protesters seemed to agree on some points, and the crowd calmed.

“That’s how you do it,” the officer said. “Dialogue.”

Ms. Frybarger had tickets to see a Broadway matinee of “Suffs,” a musical about the fight for women’s right to vote. Before departing, she said she couldn’t return on Thursday, but would be back on Friday if the jury is still deliberating. She left fulfilled.

“It became a conversation, which was nice,” she said. “And that’s what we need. To listen to each other.”

Shawn McCreesh contributed reporting.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

If I’m understanding correctly, prosecutors believe that the readback should also include the portion of Pecker’s testimony in which he directed Howard to notify other employees of The National Enquirer that they should bring any stories about Trump to him. Pecker also testified that he told Howard that the Enquirer employees would have to speak to Michael Cohen about the arrangement.

The judge notes that there was also key testimony directly after that: in which Pecker told Howard to keep the arrangement secret. This could help prosecutors show that there was intent to defraud on the part of the conspirators, who they say include Trump.

The judge seemed to make a decision here, but it was difficult to follow. We’ll find out for sure soon, either when we receive a transcript tonight or when the jurors are read this testimony back tomorrow.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Trump’s legal adviser, Boris Ephsteyn, who has been described as helping manage the relationship between Trump and Blanche, whom he helped bring into Trump's fold, is standing at the gate leading to the well of the court now, furiously whispering with Blanche.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Justice Merchan says he will bring the jurors back into the courtroom, tell them lawyers are working on identifying the transcripts they feel are relevant to the jurors’ first requests and clarify whether they want to hear all of the jury instructions again — which would take an hour — or specific portions.

When Justice Merchan addressed the note with the prosecutors and defense lawyers, he asked if it was OK to seat the alternates where they had been in the jury box, as opposed to in the front row, since this courtroom is packed. No one objected.

The second appears to pertain to Pecker’s decision not to collect reimbursem*nt from Trump for his hush-money deal with McDougal. The wording from the jurors is slightly unclear, so this is the only request that we’re not entirely sure about at the moment.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Three of the requests relate to testimony from David Pecker, the former publisher of The National Enquirer and the first witness to testify for the prosecution, who prosecutors say was part of a conspiracy to suppress negative news on Trump’s behalf during the 2016 election. One of them relates to testimony from Michael Cohen, the last witness to testify for the prosecution, who is also alleged to be a part of that conspiracy.

The jurors want to hear both men’s testimony about the Trump Tower meeting where Pecker testified that the two men reached that agreement with Trump himself. Perhaps they are seeking to compare their stories.

Asked in the hallway outside the courtroom how he was feeling as the jury deliberated, Trump simply raised a fist and shook it, a gesture he has made throughout the trial as he has tried to project strength to the news media while avoiding questions.

Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, is not here.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

The jury will weigh a monumental decision in a utilitarian space.

It is here that on Wednesday jurors in the first criminal trial of an American president began weighing the fate of Donald J. Trump. And it is here that they will eventually vote on whether to convict him on all, some or none of the 34 felony charges against him that stem from a hush-money scheme.

The walls are painted a hue best described as municipal. A long conference table is surrounded by rolling office chairs, their worn seats and backs are covered with dark-colored fabric, according to people who have seen the room.

Located off a small hallway behind the courtroom, it is steps from the jury box and has a door at each end; there are two bathrooms.

Justice Juan M. Merchan’s jury room is unexceptional in the towering Art Deco granite- and limestone-faced Criminal Courts Building, which was completed in 1941 and houses dozens of courtrooms that line its long, wide marble-paneled hallways. Many have whiteboards and flat-screen monitors on which jurors can view documents and other trial exhibits.

A court officer will stand watch outside the room as the jurors deliberate. They can summon the officer with a buzzer when they want to send a note to the judge conveying questions or requests for testimony to be reread. (Once the officer enters, the jurors’ deliberations must cease.) Copies of notes are provided to the defense and the prosecution, and the judge reads them aloud in open court.

There is no way to determine how long the jurors, whose names have not been made public, will take to either reach a verdict or conclude that they are hopelessly deadlocked. But as they deliberate in their hideaway, the former president and his lawyers, as well as the prosecutors, must remain nearby in the courthouse, with little to do but wait.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Jury deliberations have started. Here’s how they work.

The first juror selected is the foreman and will likely lead the jury’s discussions during deliberations. His opinion and vote do not carry more importance than those of the others.

While the jury deliberates, it’s common to wait days, or even weeks, for a verdict. Prosecutors charged Mr. Trump with 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush-money payment to the p*rn star Stormy Daniels on the eve of the 2016 election.

The jurors’ verdict on each count — guilty or not guilty — must be unanimous.

During their deliberations, the jury can send back notes, signed by the foreperson, to ask questions to the court or have a witness’s testimony read back to them. Jurors also have access to a laptop containing trial exhibits that they can refer to during their deliberations.

If one of the 12 jurors is unable to continue deliberating for any reason, an alternate will step in. The six alternates attended the trial and remain on site so they can join in if necessary.

Mr. Trump also must remain inside the courthouse while the jury is deliberating.

If the jury finds that he is guilty of even one of the counts, the judge will sentence Mr. Trump at a later date. But if they find that he is not guilty of all of the charges, Mr. Trump will be acquitted.

If the jurors cannot reach a verdict, they will inform the judge, who will urge them to continue their deliberations. If they remain deadlocked, the judge could declare a mistrial, and the prosecutors would then need to decide whether to bring the case again.

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT

Advertisem*nt

SKIP ADVERTIsem*nT