Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Jury Asks to be Read Testimony from David Pecker and Michael Cohen; Jury Asks to Re-Hear Judge's Instructions. Aired 3:30-4p ET

Aired May 29, 2024 - 15:30   ET

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

[15:30:00]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Sometimes it's quite obvious, right? OK, David Pecker's testimony about the August 2015 meeting, easy to find that. But his testimony about, reading from the note, the decision not to finalize and fund the assignment of Karen McDougal's life rights, that could be 20, 30 pages of testimony, maybe not even consecutive.

So what the lawyers are doing right now is they're sitting there with a mountain of transcripts, thousands of pages, maybe they're word searching, and they're saying, OK, question one, can we agree that that's page 484, lines 23 through 492? But there is such a thing as the lawyers disagreeing on what's responsive.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, this is an important point here. Ultimately, it's the judge's decision over what to provide to the jurors. Now, often a judge will simply say, OK, folks, I'm just going to provide them page six of this, you're good with that, fine.

Sometimes the judge will solicit the opinions, you know, of both parties and work something out. Sometimes they'll have extended debate back and forth. Now, this is a little more simple because you're just talking about pages of transcript testimony, so they're just going to decide how much of it.

If it's a question of, well, how do we explain the concept of reasonable doubt, how do we explain, again, to the jurors what their role is, they may come back with a question like that. They'll go back and forth, and then ultimately the judge will make a call as to how much to provide, if at all. Sometimes the judge will say, just go back, you know, I provided you all the information you need, work it out.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Everyone, please stand by. We're going to squeeze in a quick break. We're going to be back in just a few minutes.

Stay with CNN on a historic moment in the Trump trial.

[15:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right, we are following the latest in the Trump hush money trial, which is that the jury has sent in a note asking for four things. Testimony from David Pecker and Michael Cohen. Four different instances where right now you have lawyers figuring out what they're going to share with the jury to answer their questions.

Let's bring in former Trump attorney William Brennan. He represented Trump payroll in the Trump Org payroll case. I think I have that correct there, William.

William, tell us what you think of what the jury is requesting here. David Pecker's testimony regarding a phone conversation with Trump while Pecker was in the investor meeting. Pecker's testimony about the decision not to finalize and fund assignment of Karen McDougal's life rights.

And then Pecker's testimony regarding a Trump Tower meeting. Same for Michael Cohen's testimony there.

WILLIAM BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Well, hello, Brianna and Boris. You know, it's hard to read the tea leaves this early, but it shows that the jury is approaching this in a systematic fashion. They're going back maybe chronologically, and they want to see what Pecker said about these two instances.

I think they also asked for Pecker's testimony and Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower meeting. That may be done to compare the two, but it, I think, just shows that they're working hard and they're working chronologically to get through the evidence in the case.

SANCHEZ: If you were on the defense team in this case, would this signal to you that the jury is entertaining the prosecution, at least in the way that the closing argument was laid out? Because it seemed to zoom in on some of these very key aspects that are essential to their argument in this testimony.

BRENNAN: Boris, it may. I mean, certainly I think it would be unrealistic to think that the jury would just disregard all the prosecution's arguments. There are a lot of points the prosecution made that ring true and make sense. But it's important to remember here that to get to that, you know, promised land of a felony, they need to connect it to the intent to influence the election or violate some type of campaign finance law or election law.

So they could go through all of this fairly routine, mundane testimony, determine that certain acts occurred, but when they get to the end of the story, they may not find that they occurred with the intent to influence the election, and that would result in acquittal.

KEILAR: As you think of these moments in the testimony, including from the Trump Tower meeting, is there anything that stands out to you, William, that you think would interest the jury when they have this testimony read back to them?

BRENNAN: Well, Brianna, it's a bit of a two-edged sword because the jury heard about the lying doorman with the $30,000 for the illegitimate child who didn't exist. They heard about the McDougal scenario. Then they heard from Ms. Clifford from Stormy Daniels, and they could look at it one of two ways. They could say, well, these things happen. We saw it happen with Governor Schwarzenegger, with Hulk Hogan, with many other celebrities, and this is the way people in that world work.

Or they could look at it and say this is nefarious, and the Daniels payment was done because the defendant was in the midst of an election, and that's really what the case will hinge on.

SANCHEZ: William, I'm wondering when it comes to that specific portion of the testimony, the testimony from David Pecker about deciding not to finalize and fund the assignment of Karen McDougal's life rights, how does that affect this case? What do you think the jury is trying to glean specifically there?

BRENNAN: Well, you know, that's an interesting point and question, Boris, because that really shouldn't have a direct effect on the verdict in this case. This is about the Daniels payment, but the other two, that really shouldn't have a direct effect on the verdict in this case. This is about the Daniels payment, but the other two instances were introduced, and it could have a spillover effect on the issue that they're really looking to solve.

But it seemed to me, you know, just from the cheap seats, that the net effect of that testimony was positive for the defense in that it showed a couple of things. It showed that these things occur more often than, you know, those of us in the general public probably realize, and that they're not illegal, and that it's the way that these people do business.

This lawyer Davidson, he apparently finds people in trouble and then exploits that to his benefit or to his client's benefit, and Pecker plays a similar but different role in that cycle of, you know, drama.

And as shocking as it may be, and as distasteful as these acts may be, they're apparently not illegal.

KEILAR: All right, William, thank you so much for your insights. If you can stand by for us, as we know the lawyers are now working to figure out. They're doing very exciting things like marking up pages. Then they'll have to come to a consensus, right, about what they're going to share with the jury. It takes time.

These are four pretty kind of complex, I would say, things when they're putting the testimony together. You just heard what William said. Any comments on what you heard him say there?

HONIG: Well, one thing that jumps out to me, the jury's asking for two different people's account of the same meeting, David Pecker and Michael Cohen, both referring to the important August 2015 meeting. My recollection is their testimony about that meeting is largely mutually consistent, not identical. No two people are ever going to have an exactly identical account of it, but consistent for the most part. And I think as a prosecutor you like that, because remember, the central theme of the prosecution's closing yesterday was corroboration.

You don't have to believe Michael Cohen in a vacuum. Look at the checks, and this is a good example of that. If you don't maybe trust Michael Cohen in a vacuum, you go, well, OK, cross-check it against David Pecker's testimony about the same meeting.

So I think what we're going to see, and the jury's probably going to hear soon, is more or less mutually reinforcing, consistent testimony.

SANCHEZ: And what does it actually look like in court when this testimony is pulled? How does it work?

WILLIAMS: So as we said before the break, the judge will come to some consensus or conclusion as to which portions that everybody can agree on, or at least that they don't agree on, that he thinks ought to be read. And then, in effect, the court reporter or a court staffer will simply read them in a neutral tone, not ascribing value to what anybody's saying, but simply reading the words on the page.

So this is from page, you know, from page -- like Elliot said a little bit earlier -- 2006, lines 8 to 642 or whatever, and then just read them in a neutral tone.

OK, this next excerpt is page 2008, and then reading from there methodically, and then just send the jury back afterward. And he may give a little bit of an instruction as to what he's doing. You know, ladies and gentlemen, you have requested this information. I have worked with the attorneys to find you precisely the information you need. Here it is. Read it, and then send them back.

HONIG: And this will take a bit, by the way, a bit of time, right? I mean, because first, and we just had a note that Joshua Steinglass is going through a tall stack of transcripts with a marker. First, the parties and the judge have to get together. I mean, this is four requests at once. Like, a lot of times, you just get one at a time.

So first, they have to pick the transcripts. Then they have to redact out, right, if there's an objection in the middle. That'll get redacted out. High-stakes redacting happening here. When they finally set the four pieces of testimony they're going to read to the jury, I mean, that could take a half hour, an hour, easy.

Then they bring the jury in, and then the readback happens. I mean, this is going to take us to the end of, if they do leave as planned at 4:30, this will take us, I believe, through 4:30.

WILLIAMS: A really good point about the objections, because we had the benefit as the public of watching them all in real time and actually seeing what the attorneys were arguing with the judge, except for that one moment where the judge even kicked the media out. The jury is not allowed to see that because technically it's struck from the record, even if they heard it the first time around. So they've got to figure out which portions literally to excise.

They'll black it out or just simply skip over it and pretend as if they didn't happen. All of this is a very time-consuming process. And just think about how long we listen to some of these witnesses testify for, and they're asking for what could be an hour for each one.

SANCHEZ: Each one could be set for hours.

WILLIAMS: Yes, more than a day.

SANCHEZ: A tedious process, one that may be integral to a verdict.

KEILAR: Yes, certainly. All right, let's stand by, because obviously some important work being done there, as we know that former President Trump is talking with one of his attorneys. All of this going on as they work out what they're going to be reading back to the jury.

We'll squeeze in a quick break and be right back.

[15:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SANCHEZ: Welcome back to NEWS CENTRAL. We are tracking the breaking news in the Donald Trump hush money case. The jury sending a note to Judge Juan Merchan moments ago, making four requests for testimony, both from David Pecker and Michael Cohen. Key moments, potentially, in this case.

Let's take you outside the courthouse now with CNN's Kaitlan Collins. She's alongside Kristen Holmes and Paula Reid.

Kaitlan, these are pretty substantial requests for testimony. This is no doubt going to take a while.

[15:50:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Yes, it's this interesting part where you don't want to read too much into it because we don't know what's happening inside that jury room. But also you want to read a lot into it because we are desperate to know what they're debating or deliberating on what part of this debate that they are at right now. We're still waiting on the actual jury to be brought into the courtroom as it appears that the two parties are still trying to make sure they have exactly which parts of the testimony that the jury here is asking about.

They got this note about an hour ago. That buzzer went off inside the courtroom. It got everyone's attention as they were waiting to see what it was that the jury had in mind. And it turned out it was a note requesting four different pieces of testimony all related to two crucial witnesses here.

One, the tabloid king David Pecker. And two, Michael Cohen, of course, Trump's former fixer and attorney who is at the center of all of this.

And Paula, you know, we can't read too much into this because we don't know. But if you were looking at how the closing arguments went, the prosecution pointed to David Pecker's testimony a lot. As Kristen noted earlier, they called it damning. And it was quite damning testimony because it directly tied Trump to this plot of covering up certain stories. And Michael Cohen is about the Trump Tower meeting. None of this is about looking, you know, necessarily at the checks or the invoices. We know they can do that on the laptop that they have. But it is interesting to see which portions of this testimony they feel they need to hear to assist them.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and as others have said, and we indicated initially, it suggests that they're going through the case chronologically. And that's something that prosecutors did yesterday during their closing arguments. They went back to what they believe is the beginning of the alleged conspiracy.

So we'll hear shortly the portions of the testimony back. But it suggests they're going through this chronologically, which also signals that it's almost impossible that we'll get a verdict today. And it could be a few days. If they're going to go through, sort of week by week, go through all of these key moments and discuss them, this could take a while.

But this really, this makes sense. This is not a huge surprise that they'd want to hear more about David Pecker when you have multiple people in a meeting. That's so critical. And again, prosecutors argued this was the first action, the first step that was taken in this alleged conspiracy to help Trump win in 2016. It really makes sense that this would be their first question. In many ways, this is what we expected.

COLLINS: Yes, and obviously Trump has been sitting in the courtroom also waiting to see how the jury deliberations are going. He's not allowed to leave while the jury is there deliberating. He's instead also in a separate room waiting to see what they're also talking about.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and I will note this caveat before I say what I'm going to say, which is that no one actually knows anything, including Trump's team. But they are trying to read the tea leaves, and they do feel more optimistic given the length of deliberation.

Once again, they do not know anything, but just like everybody else, they are trying to find some indication of which way the jury is leaning. And they felt like there was a possibility early on that there could be potentially a very quick turnaround and it would be a conviction right away, meaning it would be political.

I think that, Paula, we have some incoming news.

REID: We have something that's happening. Once again, this buzzer inside the court has just gone off. Now, right before that, the lawyers, they're working on the transcripts. They're reviewing what they think should be read back. Our colleagues describe it as being waiting mode. So right now, this buzzer has gone off again.

It's unclear if this means the jury is coming in again, if they're ready, or if they just continue to work while the lawyers figure out the transcripts and that they perhaps have another request or another note. So we're waiting right now for our colleagues inside to give us a live update. What does this buzzer mean?

Is this another request? What exactly does it signal? Because usually when that goes off, it means that the jury is trying to communicate with the courtroom. They need something. We obviously just got this request for four different portions of testimony. So now it's possible if they sounded this again, they could have another request.

COLLINS: Or maybe they're potentially clarifying because there was a bit of confusion on the third point of what they were asking for, which was David Pecker's testimony. It seemed to be on why he didn't ultimately fulfill the agreement that he struck with Michael Cohen after, of course, he paid the $150,000 to the rights, the life rights for Karen McDougal, in addition to also paying for her to do other work for them that never really materialized. But he essentially was asking that.

And then he, after speaking with the general counsel at AMI, testified that he backed off of it and didn't want Michael Cohen to pay him back anymore. Which David Pecker, for those who remember, on day one of this trial really getting underway, he testified that Michael Cohen was angry about that, that he kind of went ballistic after David Pecker said, no thanks, I don't actually want you to pay me back for this $150,000.

REID: It is really confusing exactly what they were asking for there because they're talking again about David Pecker's decision. Again, the exact quote, and we know other people are confused about this. His decision not to finalize and fund the assignment, does it mean what you were just talking about, the fact that he didn't get refunded, and why?

Because we know that they did pay $150,000 to Karen McDougal. So it would be helpful if the jury was able to clarify that note. But again, we have no idea why the buzzer has gone off.

Once again, while we continue to wait for the lawyers to decide which portions of the transcripts will be read back. So a lot happening inside, but not exactly clear what any of it means.

[15:55:00]

COLLINS: Well, and amazing that they have to communicate by note with the judge.

REID: Buzzer.

COLLINS: Buzzer, notes, the foreperson contacting the judge, Bree and Boris, obviously, are we are waiting to get more clarification on what exactly the jury is trying to get clarification on here with these two buzzers now going off inside that courtroom behind us.

KEILAR: Yes, maybe there will be a carrier pigeon. I mean, it's quite from another era, I think, Kaitlan.

All right, let's sort of pull back a little bit and talk about this -- well, there are a few different conversations, but the one that they want David Pecker's testimony about and Michael Cohen's testimony about is this Trump Tower meeting.

We should remind our viewers what the prosecution and the defense said about this meeting and their closing arguments. And what the prosecution was saying is that this is really a prism through which the jury should be looking at the case.

At the charging conference last week, the parties debated over language for a definition of the phrase normal, legitimate press function to be read to the jury in Merchan's instruction on the law. And that's critical to this because this conversation where they came up with this catch and kill scenario, David Pecker, National Enquirer, they're going to be patting down negative stories. They're going to be playing up positive stories of Trump's opponents.

Of course, the prosecution wants jurors to say this is in the service of the campaign. The real game changer of this meeting, this is a quote, was the catch and kill component, and that's the illegal part because once money starts changing hands on behalf of the campaign, that's federal election campaign finance violations. And this jury is asking, is there something illegal or not?

On the flip side, the defense basically saying, no, this is normal. This is just what people do, is what famous people do.

WILLIAMS: Let's go back. It's funny. We're almost at the end of the hour. Go back to where we start.

SANCHEZ: Sorry to interrupt. It sounds like we have another note. In moments, we'll know what it is. Perhaps another request for more testimony. We shall wait and see.

WILLIAMS: Really quickly, go back to where we started. Falsifying business records. Felony falsification of business records.

OK. Falsifying records to commit or conceal another crime. That crime either being conspiracy to interfere with elections, a tax crime, or a campaign finance crime. What's happening here? This meeting, as alleged, is where these three parties hatched a scheme -- this is according to the prosecution -- or at least laid the groundwork for a scheme to catch and kill, to suppress these stories for pay in order to benefit the Trump campaign.

In order to succeed, prosecutors need to establish in some way that Donald Trump knew full well or even participated directly in this scheme to benefit his campaign by suppressing these stories. And that's what they're talking about.

SANCHEZ: We have a -- we just got an update. The jury note, they asked to re-hear the judge's instructions.

(CROSSTALK)

HONIG: I think I just said, oh, my goodness. So the judge spent an hour this morning going through 50-some pages of legal instructions, and it sounds like the jury is saying, we want to hear them all again, because as I'm reading this, we, the jury, request to re-hear the judge's instructions.

Now, sometimes juries will come back and say, can you please re-read us the part about federal election fraud? Or can you please re-read us the part about reasonable doubt? This sounds like they want to hear the whole thing again.

SANCHEZ: It's also interesting that it comes just after they asked for testimony.

WILLIAMS: Again, I'm not in the predictions business, but I will bet you an ice cream soda that the judge comes back and says, if there are specific instructions you wish to hear, please let me know, and I will work out with the attorneys what I can and should share with you. I am almost certain, I don't know if you're going to agree with this or not, I think you might, that he's not going to sit there and read them a full hour.

HONIG: You're spot on, yes.

SANCHEZ: That's literally just what happened. As you were saying that we got the live streamer.

Merchan is going to bring the jury in to inquire if they want to hear all of the jury instructions or just a portion of it, neither side.

WILLIAMS: That's like actual clairvoyance. I just saw it and just knew it.

KEILAR: No way, you said.

HONIG: Also, this just underscores the craziness of not sending the jury instruction back. I mean, most federal judges will send the actual document.

KEILAR: Just give them the packet, you're saying.

HONIG: Why are we denying ourselves this baseline?

SANCHEZ: Is it New York law? Is that right?

HONIG: It's the way the New York state courts do it. They are obstinate. They are stuck in the past. They're making life difficult on the jury, frankly.

WILLIAMS: And I'll tell you, when I clerked for a federal judge, a federal trial judge, he would insist that we make them pristine in terms of no typos, perfect formatting, make sure that it's squeaky clean because these may end up going back to the jury. And you want to make sure not just that the words are right, but that you have a clean document that's going down to them.

KEILAR: All right, we have just a few moments before this all wraps up, or before we wrap up here and pass off to Jake Tapper.

What is -- what does this moment tell you? Because you might have both sides spinning it at some point. HONIG: It tells me that the jury instructions were way too much for any human being to absorb and make sense of.

WILLIAMS: They always are.

HONIG: They always are, right? But it's actually really interesting. I've actually never seen this before.

[16:00:00]

I've never seen a jury just come back and say, we need to hear the whole thing over. They usually are much more specific. So I don't know who I like this -- I don't love this as the prosecution.

WILLIAMS: No, I mean just saying that.

HONIG: I don't want this kind of just, we want to start all over again.

WILLIAMS: But I don't think they're just shooting from the hip. They want to hear what the law -- whether it's conviction or acquittal or whatever, or whether it's just one juror who needs to be set straight about something. It doesn't seem like they're shooting from the hip. They want to know what the law says, and they want to hear it again.

SANCHEZ: Roughly three and a half hours into testimony, we get one request. About an hour later, we get a second request. We're going to hear the instructions potentially all over again. A lot to process.

"THE LEAD" with Jake Tapper starts right now.