Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Now: Trump Jury Deliberating; Prosecutors, Trump Enter Courtroom After Jurors Ring Buzzer; Jury Asks To Be Read Testimony From Key Prosecution Witness. Aired 3-3:30p ET

Aired May 29, 2024 - 15:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[15:00:42]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A historic trial drawing to a close, the jury now deliberating as the defendant is waiting. Americans will soon see if a former and possibly future president could become a convicted felon.

Plus, new CNN reporting on how a cyber attack on a hospital is putting patients' lives in danger. Nurses at several hospitals are now speaking out about a threat.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And a decision by Major League Baseball gives several Negro League players - stars, the recognition that they were denied for decades. It's a watershed moment for America's pastime and American history.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

SANCHEZ: Waiting on a verdict. I'm Boris Sanchez alongside Brianna Keilar in the nation's capital. And right now the 12-person jury in former President Trump's hush money trial continues to deliberate going on more than three and a half hours now. Three hours and 33 minutes to be exact.

Jurors have a lot to hash out. Trump is facing 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels that was made just before the 2016 election.

KEILAR: And the longer these deliberations go on, the more team Trump thinks it is to their advantage. Sources telling us that there is a general belief in Trump's orbit that every minute the jury continues to deliberate is better for the former president.

CNN's Paula Reid is outside of the courthouse in New York. Paula, what are you watching right now as jurors are continuing to weigh Trump's fate?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, moments ago the buzzer went off inside the courtroom. Our colleagues are inside keeping an eye on things. And typically when that buzzer sounds, it means that the jury has a question. But at this point, it's unclear exactly what is going on. Most of the reporters have filed back into the courtroom. But our colleagues say they're still waiting for the parties, for the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the defendant and the judge.

Now, as we reported, the defendant, he has to remain inside the courthouse during these deliberations. So he is close by and we'll be watching and waiting to see what exactly the jury has to say. This would be pretty quick to come back with a verdict. But at this point, it is unclear why that buzzer sounded.

It has been widely expected, though, that this jury would likely have some questions about this case. Not only do they have this historic deliberation that they have undertaken, they also don't have access to all the evidence that they've heard over the past several weeks.

They have a laptop with some of the evidence. But, for example, they don't have access to transcripts from a testimony by key witnesses like Stormy Daniels or Hope Hicks or Michael Cohen. So it's widely expected that after they were in there for a couple hours, got a sense of where all the jurors were at in terms of this case, that they would likely have questions either about the evidence or about the law.

But at this point, again, our colleagues are inside. They said they've heard the buzzer. It's not clear if this is a question, but that is what they expect. This is likely a question from the jury, but they're still waiting for everyone to come back in the courthouse.

Now, if this is a question, the way this would work is the question would be read. And then, of course, both sides suddenly enter into this game of trying to figure out what exactly it means. They try to read the tea leaves. You see this in almost every trial. But, of course, here, this historic trial, the first criminal prosecution of a former president of the United States. And this jury has been deliberating for a little over three and a half hours.

So we continue to get live updates from our colleagues who are inside to figure out exactly what the jury has to say.

SANCHEZ: Paul Reed, please keep us posted on what we hear from the jury. It's not just the attorneys that are going to try to interpret it. It's us out here as well. Paula Reid, thanks so much. Brianna?

KEILAR: All right. So as we wait to see what exactly that buzzer means, let's go through some of the scenarios, the possible outcomes in this historic trial. We have CNN Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams here with us.

Lay out some of the possibilities, Elliot, of what the jury could decide.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely, Brianna. Now, there are the two big ones the jury can convict or acquit the defendant. And to important - and to be clear, these are the only two verdicts that are possible, and I'll explain that in a second.

[15:05:06]

Now, what's required here for conviction or acquittal is unanimity of these 12 people. They all have to agree on the outcome. So if they're split, that is not a conviction or an acquittal and those are the two big ones, guilty or not guilty.

KEILAR: Okay. So but what if they can't decide and how often does that happen?

WILLIAMS: So it doesn't happen incredibly often. Now, it might be the case here. Feelings are high about this matter. So who knows what happens there now? If they can't, the system tries to force that unanimous outcome. And the judge will give what's called an Allen charge, this big. And it's pages long, pages and pages long.

But the big thing is that last line: "Please continue to deliberate with a view towards reaching a verdict." The judge is going to try to push the jurors to come to some unanimous conclusion, whatever it may be, whether it is a conviction or an acquittal. They will push that.

Now, why I said it's not a verdict if it's not? And our Constitution requires that, number one, if - or tries to push folks toward getting convicted or acquitted because you can't try someone again if they've been convicted or acquitted. This is the double jeopardy provision in the Constitution. So that's really what happens here.

Now, if they're not, and if the big one comes ...

KEILAR: If they just can't agree.

WILLIAMS: If they just can't agree ...

KEILAR: Okay.

WILLIAMS: ... they get a hung jury. And that can be if literally one juror says, I'm just not going to go along with it. That can be after multiple Allen charges. I've seen where the judge instructed the jury two or three times to try to go back in the room and come to some consensus, and it just didn't happen. It can be one. It can be three or four, whatever it is.

KEILAR: I think of that Norman Rockwell print where the 11 jurors are talking to the - in this case, it's a woman.

WILLIAMS: It's a woman.

KEILAR: It's a woman and there's 11 men, but they're trying to convince her clearly to find consensus with them.

WILLIAMS: Yes.

KEILAR: If the jury does decide that Trump is guilty, then what proceeds from there? What's next?

WILLIAMS: So sentencing if he's guilty. Now, this is the indictment here. And remember words we've heard again and again and again. He is charged with falsifying business records in the first degree. That is a felony under New York law. Particularly, it's what's called a class E felony, which carries with it a four-year maximum sentence.

Now, all within the sound of my voice, take heed, Donald Trump is likely not going to jail for four years. Very few people ever get the statutory maximum. It's just not common. Now, what will the judge do in deciding how to sentence and that's sort of why he won't.

Some of the things that the judge will consider, number one, the criminal history of the defendant. This defendant, Donald Trump, doesn't have a criminal history. So that will factor to his benefit. Has he accepted responsibility, shown remorse, said he was sorry?

KEILAR: No.

WILLIAMS: I don't see that happening here.

KEILAR: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Is he a danger to the community, a risk and so on? And finally, what effect might this have on the defendant or other people, deterring them from future conduct - misconduct? Now, I guess the question of, does he lose any rights if he's convicted?

And he really well might, after going through all the appeals. A convicted felon in the state of Florida, notably, loses the right to vote, loses the right to serve on a jury, loses the right to hold public office, which will be interesting, and cannot possess a firearm.

So you relinquish many, many rights by being convicted as a felony, as would be the case here. It's an important reminder, Elliot.

All right. Let's go straight now back to New York and to Paula Reid.

Paula, I know that you're learning some more. What can you tell us?

REID: So we're getting live updates again from our colleagues inside the courtroom. There was this buzzer that went off. Typically, that signals that the jury has some sort of need. We anticipate that this could be a question, but at this point, we don't know exactly what it is that the jury is trying to communicate. So far, folks are trickling back into the courtroom, reporters were the first inside the room.

Now we've learned that Trump has returned to the courtroom. His attorney, Todd Blanche, is whispering to him right now. Prosecutors have also entered the courtroom. We are still waiting, though, on the judge and the jury to figure out exactly why it is that they rang this buzzer. It was, again, widely anticipated that this jury would have questions after a few hours of deliberations. But at this point, our colleagues are inside the courtroom and they say no one has informed them of exactly what is going on. No one has confirmed whether this is a question or if this is something else. So we are watching and waiting for the judge to reenter the courtroom, along with the jury, to figure out exactly what is happening. Now, the jury has been deliberating for a little over three and a half hours. Again, this is a historic decision that they have to undertake. They are contemplating 34 counts.

And when you think about the challenge of 12 people trying to vote unanimously one way or the other on 34 counts, that is an incredibly difficult undertaking. It's not clear if they're going to be able to get unanimity across either a conviction or acquittal or if this will be a mixed verdict where they could potentially convict on some counts.

[15:10:05]

Right now, though, we're hoping that maybe if this is a question, that it could provide some insight into exactly where they are in deliberations. And our colleagues inside, they're updating us minute by minute whenever anything happens. And as of right now, still waiting for the judge to return to the bench.

SANCHEZ: It could happen at any moment. We are anticipating what is going to come from the jury, this potential first question after three hours and 40 minutes of deliberation.

Let's expand the conversation now with CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig. We also have Elliot Williams back with us. And Richard Gabriel is joining us as well. He's a trial consultant who's assisted in nearly 2,000 cases, including O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and the Enron trials as well.

Elie, just about two hours ago, we were talking about the potential of some communication from the jury. You said it could be anything. They could come out and say that they didn't like roast beef for lunch.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.

SANCHEZ: What are you anticipating this might be?

HONIG: Let me give you the four possibilities what this could be. It could be a request for further legal instruction. Hey, judge, you told us this morning about the reasonable doubt standard, can you elaborate on that, that kind of legal question.

It could be a request for testimony. Judge, we'd like to hear Michael Cohen's testimony about the August 2015 meeting, in which case they'll bring the jury out. The court reporter will then do a read back off the transcript, and then they'll go back and continue deliberating.

It could be what I would call a logistical or miscellaneous request. Like you said, it's too hot in here, can you turn the thermostat down. We'd like to go late. We need office supplies, that kind of thing. Or, and I said, let's be very cautious, it could be a verdict as well. So those are the four possibilities.

SANCHEZ: I just want to update our viewers. Judge Juan Merchan is now back in the room. And just in, our producers are feeding us the information ...

KEILAR: That's right.

SANCHEZ: ... through our reporters in the courtroom, we have a note from the jury. We're waiting to find out exactly what it entails. As Elie noted, it could be a number of things. What do you think it might be this early on, Elliot?

WILLIAMS: Oh, my goodness. You - we always go through this, Boris.

SANCHEZ: (INAUDIBLE) ...

KEILAR: Read their minds, Elliot.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: He gets the impossible question.

WILLIAMS: I get the - I mean, he got the softball.

You know, it really could just be a question at this point. I would think so. This is a little early for them to say, oh, my god, we can't possibly come to a conclusion. Usually it's after a couple days or maybe a day - I don't want to put a time amount on it. Two or three hours would be a very short time for them to say that we can't come to an agreement. So I don't think they're deadlocked. But my guess is it's probably just a question for the court. I don't know, though.

KEILAR: Let's go back now to Paula. She has more information on this. The buzzer, then the note, what can you tell us, Paula?

REID: All right. So they received a note from the jury, and it contains four different requests. We're getting these live updates. They're coming in, in real time from our colleagues. One of the requests is, one, the jury requests David Pecker's testimony regarding the phone conversation with Donald Trump while Pecker was in. There might be a typo here, was in a meeting.

So this is something that we've signaled they might ask for is specific portions of testimony from key witnesses because they do have a laptop that contains a lot of the documents at the heart of this case, but they don't have transcripts from witness testimony. And obviously this case in many ways is heavily reliant on the testimony of witnesses.

So we fully expected that they would come back and ask for additional portions of testimony. Here they're asking for a specific portion of testimony from David Pecker.

Now, another one of the requests was Pecker's testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting. Now, there is another request for Cohen's testimony regarding the Trump Tower meeting. So those are three of the four requests. We're getting these live updates. This is interesting, though, that two of these requests relate to the Trump Tower meeting. This is the 2015 Trump Tower meeting that prosecutors argue began this alleged conspiracy to try to suppress negative stories to help Trump win in 2016.

We're learning the additional request that has come in is, again, Pecker testimony about a decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of Karen McDougal, of one of the aspects of the deal with McDougal. Again, this is coming in real time.

But this is interesting, particularly the fact that they're so focused on the Trump Tower meeting because yesterday in their closing statements, prosecutors spent a lot of time going through the alleged conspiracy to help Trump win in 2016. Now, that is significant because the reason that these 34 counts of falsifying business records have been charged as a felony is because prosecutors argue that this was all part of a conspiracy to help Trump win in 2016. And they argue that this alleged conspiracy began with that Trump Tower meeting.

So it appears that the jury, during their nearly four hours of deliberations right now, that this is something that they want to see more closely, what Michael Cohen and David Pecker testified about. Now, we're told that the parties are preparing where the judge has said that he'll be in the robing room until the parties are ready to begin.

Now, he said he's going to bring the jury in, plus alternates, and he is going to read the testimony back.

[15:15:02]

So they're not going to get a copy of it. Instead, it's going to be read back to them. And he's giving both sides a little bit of time to prepare. He stepped off the bench. So this could be a little bit before they bring the jury back in. And it's interesting, they're also keeping the alternates there because the judge said that he may need their service at some point.

So the judge has stepped down from the bench, and now we wait until everyone comes back in, including the jury. And then they're going to get to hear these specific portions of testimony that they have requested.

But this is a little window into how far they've gotten in their deliberations, but definitely some key portions of testimony from David Pecker and Michael Cohen that they would like to revisit.

KEILAR: All right. Paula, super helpful. Thank you so much for sharing that with us.

Now you don't, Elliot, have to guess anymore. That's the note, four requests. What do you make of what the jury's asking for?

WILLIAMS: I think they're trying to get their heads around the concept of intent on the part of Donald Trump. What did he know and what did he say, what - recounting what might have been discussed by these three central figures, Donald Trump, David Pecker and Michael Cohen.

And all this goes to intent, because of the fact that prosecutors will have to establish that Donald Trump either knew he was directing a scheme or was participating in it or was a party to it, and simply that whatever was carried out was not done by Michael Cohen acting rogue. So that - at least on those two that regard to the Trump Tower meeting, yes, I think that's good.

KEILAR: We'll just keep two of the four there.

HONIG: Yes, these requests are focused and they're detailed and specific. And frankly, as a prosecutor, I like to see that, right? I've gotten wacky jury notes where I've said, oh, no, they're off on some tangent. This is right down the middle of where you want them to be. And if you track the closing argument that we heard from the ADA Steinglass yesterday, he cast that Trump Tower meeting, August 2015, as chapter one of this whole story. That's where it all started.

That's when Trump, Pecker, Cohen, maybe Hope Hicks, a little unclear if she was there, got together and decided, okay, we're going to use the power of the National Enquirer to try to help Donald Trump politically. So it's a perfectly natural, logical place for the jury to start.

WILLIAMS: And to clarify, just - when we say a question that's completely off base, I mean really off base. And just to make something up - I'm making this up here, just full disclosure. But in this case, all this evidence about Hope Hicks and Michael Cohen and so on, and they come back with a question about how does an accountant get licensed in the state of New York?

Literally, you get questions like that sometimes that might seem relevant to someone who doesn't know the case, but have nothing to do with what they're actually there to decide.

SANCHEZ: Let's get some perspective from Richard, who's been standing by patiently as we've been awaiting news that the jury's made these requests about testimony from David Pecker and Michael Cohen as well.

Richard, how do you read this?

RICHARD GABRIEL, TRIAL CONSULTANT: Well, this is fairly normal. It's a pretty complicated case. It's been going five weeks, really complicated instructions. And they just got those instructions, obviously, this morning. So they're obviously tracking a few things.

Obviously, the intent issue is very important to them. But this can be either a single juror who has this request, or it can be the body of jurors. So the thing to remember is that they're in the middle of deliberations, and deliberations can happen in a variety of ways. They can happen where they go around and say, okay, what questions do we have? They can be - start at the beginning and say that that's obviously something that they may be tracking right now.

Let's start at the beginning and kind of work our way chronologically through the events of the case and see what questions we have to see whether it meets these parts of the evidentiary issues that we need to decide. So I think the jurors are then trying to wrap their heads around some of these issues and trying to match them to the specific jury instructions regarding solicitation, request commanding, intentionally aiding or whether concealing, causing a false entry.

These are all the legal language, but then they're trying to match up the evidence to try and figure out how does that track where we're supposed to be going on these verdict questions.

KEILAR: Are you encouraged, Richard, by this kind of verdict - or pardon me, by this kind of jury question? Yes, I am. I mean, it says that they are tracking the evidence, and obviously, we've got a very smart and sophisticated jury. You've got two lawyers, two financial folks. You've got engineers and a teacher and physical therapist. You've got very smart people on there.

So they are really working through this, and they are tracking the actual evidence in the case. And obviously, they're looking at the words. They want to hear the testimony to see whether there is testimony that matches some of these jury instructions, and then how does that match up with the verdict questions. So I'm encouraged that they are working diligently through the evidence in the case.

KEILAR: All right, Richard, thank you so much.

Let's go back to New York, where our Kaitlan Collins and Kristen Holmes are.

Kaitlan, so here we are looking at this note, which has four requests, pretty detailed requests.

[15:20:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. And what they clearly are asking to have read back to them is different portions of testimony from two key witnesses. The first witness, David Pecker, who, of course, is the tabloid king who talked about those deals to catch-and-kill stories, a meeting that he had with Donald Trump and Michael Cohen about how to help the Trump campaign as it was taking off. And then they're also asking for Michael Cohen testimony about a meeting at Trump Tower.

And what's interesting about this and what's important to keep in mind is right now attorneys are preparing to address a jury note with these four requests. The judge is actually in a robing room right now as all this is going on because they have to assemble the parts of this testimony, bring the entire jury, including the four alternates back into the courtroom to then read this testimony back to them.

When the jury makes a request like this, they don't just get all the testimony handed to them in a transcript form. Instead, it is read to them by the judge here. I've got Paula Reid and Kristen Holmes here with me.

And Paula, obviously, this is the first note that we have gotten. They are nearly four hours into deliberations. And clearly, you know, we knew this jury was going to take their job seriously. But it is interesting that these are the two witnesses that they're asking to hear more testimony from.

REID: Yes, I think it's notable that they're focused on David Pecker. It suggests that they're going through this case perhaps chronologically, right? Because this is - some of this goes back to 2015, that initial Trump Tower meeting where they discussed how Pecker would be Trump's eyes and ears, that he would try to help him win the White House by using the National Enquirer to suppress negative stories, amplify ones that could help him.

Now, it's unclear exactly what, you know, this tells us about how they're deliberating. But it does, again, it suggests that they're going through chronologically.

COLLINS: Yes. We shouldn't read too much, obviously, into it. We don't know or have a window. We don't even know if it's one juror or multiple jurors who asked for this, Kristen.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, I just want to bring up one thing because this is a reminder from what we saw yesterday from the prosecution. When they were giving their closing arguments, one of the things that Joshua Steinglass pointed to when he was talking to the jurors was Pecker's testimony. He called it utterly damning. He said it was devastating. And he told the jurors to focus on it, saying that essentially it alone establishes one of the three elements prosecutors have to prove in the case, the conspiracy to undermine the 2016 election.

So he really put a lot of focus on David Pecker and now we're seeing the jury asking questions about that.

COLLINS: And we'll know exactly which portions are read back to them. I know the judge essentially in his instructions asked the jury to provide as much clarity as possible on which portions exactly they want read back to them because that's how they communicate is through this note. And what David Pecker had testified, though, was that it had been reported that Trump - that David Pecker and Trump - Michael Cohen and Trump initially asked them how he could help with the campaign.

What he testified to was they approached him. They set up this meeting and they asked David Pecker how he could help their campaign, which obviously we saw the ways they did so, not in - just with Karen McDougal, but also with Ted Cruz and Ben Carson and Marco Rubio and planting these negative, false, vicious stories about Trump's challengers.

REID: And the reason that this testimony from David Pecker is so significant, because it sets up what prosecutors allege was a conspiracy, a conspiracy to suppress negative stories, amplify positive ones and then falsify business records to cover up what they had done.

So this is the beginning of what prosecutors allege is this conspiracy. And again, the reason that the documents that were allegedly falsified have been charged as felony is because they argue that all of this was done to help Trump win in 2016. And David Pecker's testimony sets that up.

So the fact that they're asking about this, it is significant. It's a core part of the case. And it really, in many ways, makes sense. Of course, they're going to want to hear this again. This is one of the first witnesses that they heard from. They don't have a transcript. And it's not surprising at all that they're going to want to refresh their recollection and just refresh themselves on exactly what it is that he testified to.

COLLINS: And why do they not have a transcript of the testimony that they can just - if they can consult a computer that has the evidence on it and the exhibits that they saw, why can't they read the transcripts of testimony from witnesses like David Pecker themselves?

REID: It's not clear to me why they don't provide - I would give them everything, right, full transparency. I also have cameras in the courtroom. If I would guess, I think we should ask some of our experts who have actually worked inside that courtroom, but I would guess they also don't want them to get bogged down.

Remember, he also instructed them at the beginning of the trial, nearly seven weeks ago, that, you know, don't rely on your notes, right? Don't rely too much on your notes. Don't treat those as a transcript. Just take some notes. So it appears that they just don't want them to marry to any specific document or transcript. Instead, they want them to engage in deliberations and bring it all together.

COLLINS: In the David Pecker testimony, you - for this jury that has been here for now going on, we're in the seventh week, David Pecker was witness number one. He was the first person they heard from. And he was such an interesting witness for the prosecution, Kristen, to pick first, because he doesn't have an ax to grind against Donald Trump. He actually wanted Donald Trump to be president. He visited him when he was inside the White House. He made very clear that they haven't spoken in years since all of this began, but they made very clear that they, you know, had no - he had no issues with him, but he did have a lot of insight and a lot of information and a lot of testimony.

[15:25:07]

HOLMES: So they had been friends for decades, so he had known Donald Trump for quite a long time. One of the things I remember being so notable about David Pecker's testimony was about the election and was about Trump's feelings towards the election. He testified in those early days that when he had been helping Donald Trump with these stories in the National Enquirer, placing them or warning people near him about them, that it used to be about not wanting to upset Ivanka or Melania or upset his family, but at some point it turned to being about the election and his campaign. That was his early on testimony.

So that itself kind of shows you the evolution of David Pecker's relationship. And I will note, you know, as you said, there is no ill will between the two of them. In fact, Pecker seemed to be kind of smiling at the defense table at times, kind of waving at one of the lawyers at one of the points, looking as though he was engaging with them. And Donald Trump himself had positive things to say about David Pecker to the point where it actually got brought up in a gag order hearing later because he talked about the witness, but ... COLLINS: Yes, wasn't that your question ...

HOLMES: It was, it was.

COLLINS: ... about David Pecker?

HOLMES: Yes. And whether or not they had a relationship still. And he said he was doing a good job, that he actually didn't mind his testimony.

COLLINS: Yes. David Pecker also had an immunity agreement, a non- prosecution agreement. That might have been the reason he was smiling as well.

Obviously, Boris and Brianna, we're at a notable moment here as the jury has been deliberating for going on four hours now, and we're waiting to see exactly which portions of this testimony it is that once they are back inside the courtroom, they will have the judge then read to them as they are proceeding with these deliberations.

SANCHEZ: Yes. And the big question is how the jury is going to interpret that. Kaitlan, please stand by. Let's pose that question that Kaitlan just asked Paula to folks that have tried cases in court before. Why doesn't the jury get a physical copy of the testimony?

WILLIAMS: You know, I think a couple things. One, I believe it was Paula who'd said that they might get bogged down in it if handed. I mean, you're talking about how many thousands of pages do you think it is?

HONIG: Multiple thousands of pages.

WILLIAMS: Multiple thousands of pages of document, right?

HONIG: Yes.

WILLIAMS: Because you think it's 20-plus witnesses spread over several weeks, so number one.

Number two, and we were talking about this a little bit in the break, the paper copy of the transcript itself is not evidence, believe it or not. The words of the witnesses themselves are, but this is not, at least as of today, probably not a verified, authenticated transcript or whatever else, and there may have - you know, have - there may be an issue with just providing it wholesale to the witnesses, at least in New York.

HONIG: Yes, let me give an observation on this note. Now, let's start with a disclaimer. This is the ultimate of pseudosciences, right?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HONIG: Anytime you're trying to read into juror body language or even notes, because any of this could mean anything. It could mean we just don't know and want to refresh ourselves. It could mean 10 of us are dead set on one way and two are having questions, but I do think we can safely glean the following.

Sometimes juries go witness by witness. They go, let's start with witness one. What did he say? What did witness two say? Here the note asks for testimony from the very first witness, David Pecker, and the very last witness, Michael Cohen.

So it's quite clear to me they're not proceeding witness by witness. What it seems they're doing is proceeding chronologically along the timeline of the story, which, because, again, the August 2015 meeting is chapter one. It's where this whole plot gets hatched according to the DA. So, again, with all the caveats attached, if I'm the prosecutor, I like that. I want them to look at this case chronologically. The way the DA laid out his closing yesterday was I'm going to tell you a story. It begins in August 2015.

So it seems like they're following that sort of linear timeline, which is a natural way that people consume stories. So I think it's safe to glean that from this note.

WILLIAMS: One thing you notice in terms of moving chronologically, what they have not asked for is the testimony of Stormy Daniels, who would have testified to events happening as far back as, I think, 2006. Again, don't read too much into it, but the major sort of the plot being hatched, as Elliot noted, if we're talking about a conspiracy or whatever else here, was at least in and around that 2015 meeting.

KEILAR: Let's zoom in on Pecker's testimony about the decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of Karen McDougal's life rights. Let's just remind our viewers what happened there, right? There was this agreement where basically there was going to be payment from the Trump camp for this, but in the end, Pecker says, don't - isn't that what happened? Refresh our memory about what happened.

HONIG: Yes.

KEILAR: He said, actually, don't worry about it.

HONIG: This note is a little confusing because what happened was David Pecker and AMI, the National Enquirer, they ended up paying the $150,000 for Karen McDougal's life rights and then essentially getting stiffed by Trump and Cohen and The Trump Organization, which sets the stage for the next transaction, the Stormy Daniels transaction, where early on, Pecker's talking about it with Cohen, and then Pecker says, we're out of here because we don't want to get stiffed again. It's starting to get a little dicey maybe with campaign finance stuff.

So the way they phrase the question is a little confusing, but I also want to note this. It's not always obvious what pieces of testimony are responsive to the note, and sometimes the lawyers will disagree.

[15:30:00]

Sometimes it's quite obvious, right? Okay, David Pecker's testimony about the August 2015 meeting, easy to find that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)