Next issue: defense exhibits. Hoffinger says the prosecution was objecting to two exhibits, but now it's down to one, which she has a hearsay objection on.
BLANCHE: We're not offering this for the truth but impeachment.
MERCHAN: It would be the truth of the statement you're impeaching him with right?
BLANCHE: It depends on how he answers
MERCHAN: But how he answers it at that point the cat's out of the bag, the jury has heard it.
Hoffinger rises for the counterargument: Citron's opinion is not an impeachment of how Cohen felt the meeting went, and whether it's impeachment or not, it's still hearsay. This doesn't disclose what was in Michael Cohen's mind about how he felt the meeting went.
Merchan is ready to rule on the campaign finance expert witness issue, which we discussed on Thurs.
Recall, the defense wanted to elicit testimony from Brad Smith defining three terms: influencing an election for federal office, irrespective rule, and the press exemption.
Ordinarily expert testimony is admissible (e.g. DNA evidence), but an expert is not permitted to present or interpret the law—however, Merchan says it would be impossible for Smith to testify w/out interpreting the law.
The defense promised to elicit only very basic matters and at a bare minimum—however, Merchan just doesn't see how that could be possible. It falls under the umbrella of legal opinion, and could potentially lead to three conflicting sets of legal instructinos.
Trump looks up at Bove as he argues, then turns his gaze forward, in the direction of the bench.
The tough spot that we're in is, your honor has not indicated a firm tension to instruct the jury on FECA, Bove says. We're restricted in what Mr Smith is saying.
Bove asks Merchan again for "anything you can give us on the court's intention to instruct the jury"—citing his experience presiding over People v. Trump Org, Justice Merchan says: "When it comes to these matters, I often think that less is better."
Bove continues to argue his case, but Merchan maintains that the witness would be presenting the law with the authority of a legal expert—one relying on SCOTUS opinions and other legal opinions, which would not be appropriate.
BOVE: What makes this case different is the predicate for the 175.10 charge (the NY state election law) is it's only unlawful if there is unlawful activity. Otherwise, it's just agreement to win an election.
After Merchan cuts in, Bove waves his arms and continues to try to argue, but Merchan calms him down, and says "relax."
"I'm going to be consistent with my earlier rulings," Merchan says, reminding Bove that the People initially had 4 theories, and he ruled against one of them.
Bc the expert witness is a lawyer, law prof, and former FEC commission, his entire experience in understanding how these terms apply/are defined is based on interpretation, Colangelo says for his last point.
As we wait for the morning to resume, I (Tyler) overhear a reporter in the gallery say, somewhat dejectedly: "Well, it looks like we're going to be here for another week."
Merchan asks for one side to draft some instructions, then the other to "do the red line," and says If the two sides can agree on the definitions of these terms that's all the better. Also mentions his preference to keep it as simple as possible.
How about prosecutors, how many times have you met with them?
COHEN: More than a dozen
BLANCHE: So like more than 12, but 20 times?
COHEN: It's possible.
Cohen says he met with prosecutors as recently as 10 days ago.
What's a question you were asked last week that you were hearing for the first time Blanche asks, but Cohen isn't sure. How about documents, you reviewed those in prep with prosecutors? That's correct, Cohen says.
Finally, we're back on track, Oct 2016, the days leading up to the hush-money payments.
Q: You agree with me that you had a lot going on both in your personal life and with Trump in those first few weeks of Oct?
A: Yes sir
Around the time, Blanche says, Cohen was dealing with some significant restructuring of his taxi medallion business, and an issue with a loan or sale related to an investment property of Cohen's.
More going on in Oct 2016: Cohen's work with the diversity coalition; working closely Pecker on another issue about iPayments(?); helping Tiffany Trump with a photo extortion issue.
Blanche pulls up B130, a text from someone named Carrie on 9/28/16—further communications on the taxi medallion issue I believe. B132 10/13/16 email, a medallion acquisition proposal.
All of this seems to further the point that Cohen was a busy bee in Oct 2016.
Blanche asks about Friedman, to whom Cohen leased his taxi medallion, and, separately, the owner of Resolution Consultants, with whom Cohen was also in touch around this time.
Again, all this seems to suggest that Cohen had many irons in the fire around this time.
Q: During that time period, do you recall having issues with Freidman bc of his financial situation?
A: Bc of the entire taxi industry financial situation.
Blanche says he's not interested in talking about the entire taxi industry, but I, for one, would love to do just that.
Add comment