Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

Judge Delivers Instructions to Trump Jury. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired May 29, 2024 - 11:00   ET



KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: And the judge is talking about count one that John was just referencing.

"On or about February 14, 2017, the defendant personally or, by acting in concert with others, made or caused the false entries in the books of a business enterprise."

And so that's important, because he could have caused it by having -- by participating in this scheme, if that's what the jury believes here, but the question is, do they -- do they separate the ledgers from the checks, that -- Merchan says: "It is specific to the invoice of Michael Cohen, marked as a record of Donald J. Trump's trust, and kept or maintained by the Trump Organization," the checks that only Trump had the authorization to sign.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: And just be clear, the judge made clear that the cause can include just had knowledge of or approved it or was aware of it without objecting. That could be enough to convict here.

The judge also says the defendant did so with the intent.

COLLINS: And, by that, you -- it's not that Trump has to say, John Berman, you have to physically do this for it to be caused, that, because you did it as a result of his instruction, whether it was implicit or explicit, matters.

Merchan says: "That includes the intent to commit another crime and to -- or to aid or conceal the commission of another crime."

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: And this is what prosecutors are hoping, that jurors will lean into the idea that Trump didn't direct this explicitly, but that he set this in motion, that he caused this to happen, that word doing a lot of work there.

The prosecutors believe, if jurors see the case that way, that they could get convictions across the board. Unclear if that's going to happen, but that has always been their theory of the case and why they are confident that they can win here.

COLLINS: And Merchan had just told the jury that they must find Trump guilty, the defendant guilty, if they believe that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt both aspects of that, says, jurors must find the defendant not guilty if there's reasonable doubt about one or both of the elements of the charge. And that's what was so interesting, John, about what the judge was saying there, that this reasonable -- reasonable doubt is kind of your interpretation of that as a human. I mean, I know Judge Merchan will obviously say, each of these jurors has had like experiences where, on a daily basis, they have to make a judgment on reasonable doubt about something.

But now they're doing it in a highly consequential case.

BERMAN: This is something that the defense here and really any defense clings on to in a criminal trial, reasonable doubt.

Jury, if you have doubts here, you cannot convict. And the judge tried to explain to them what that doubt is or how expansive that doubt must be. We're going to go through all 34 counts here by the judge, and he's going to lay out for them exactly what they have to determine on each and every count.

COLLINS: I want to bring in trial attorney and jury consultant Linda Moreno back with us, who has been covering every week of this trial since -- since day one of it.

And, Linda, it's great to have you here. As the jury is listening to all of this, what do you make of the clarity of the instructions from the judge so far and what the jury is taking in right now that they have to remember? They can ask the judge for -- to repeat it later on, but they won't have a physical copy of this in that jury room with them.

LINDA MORENO, TRIAL ATTORNEY AND JURY CONSULTANT: Well, they're -- of course, they have been attentive the entire time, and they can also ask for some of the instructions back in the deliberating room.

So it's a lot to take in, as lawyers are even saying it's a lot to take in. But what's astounding and astonishing about this particular panel is, they have never missed a day. They have never been late. They have been committed, taking notes.

But I think they're going to have a lot of questions back there in the room.

COLLINS: And would -- can you interpret what questions that they're asking?

Obviously, they have to -- they have to write it on a note to the judge so it's not misinterpreted, so he has full clarity of what it is exactly that they're asking. Is there any -- ever any way to discern what the jury is talking about in that specific moment or which way they're leaning from those notes?

Or is it kind of hard to tell, since, you know, we're not physically in the jury room with them?

MORENO: It's -- it can be both.

They can send out a note through the foreman, who juror number one, as designated under state law, and they can send out the note. But that note may reveal discussion amongst all of the jurors, or maybe there's just one juror who is stuck on what's reasonable doubt or intent or the meaning of cause.

So that -- that's very difficult to tell. When they ask for a readback on cross-examinations of certain witnesses, that might be more telling, however.

COLLINS: And I should note, Judge Merchan right now is reading the entire law of falsifying business records in the first degree as it's written in New York law for this jury.

If they have questions inside the jury room, Linda, do they -- can they only write notes to the judge? Is there ever a moment where he wants to bring the entire jury in to explain to them a piece of this or a part of it, or is it typically just these written notes that they would send to him?

MORENO: Well -- well, typically, the notes come out, and the judge will convene counsel on both sides and ask for their input.

And, hopefully, there's some sort of consensus. And he may either write a note back to the jury or bring the jury out and read the answer to the jury. So it can happen in a number of different ways.


COLLINS: And as -- what's clear here, as the judge is talking to them about reasonable doubt is, he was explaining that it's not probable, it's not that maybe they could be guilty here, it's not that it is beyond all doubt that the defendant here is guilty. It's reasonable doubt that is this kind of middle ground that the jury must coalesce around, whether it's guilty or not guilty.

And from your experience working with juries, do they ever walk out of that room thinking that it wasn't completely clear? Or do they usually have a pretty good feeling about where they have landed on whether it was beyond a reasonable doubt or not?

MORENO: Well, it does have to be beyond every single reasonable doubt.

And jurors often ask that question. What are examples of reasonable doubt? And, of course, the answers range from it's proof of a firm conviction. It must have moral certainty. It can't be imaginary doubt. It can't be beyond all possible doubt. But, sometimes, jurors do have questions about that particular instruction and also the instructions on intent.

COLLINS: What's it like inside a jury room as they're deliberating this?

I mean, these are jurors who they're not supposed to really talk to each other about the case when they're at a lunch break or in a quick break. They had a few breaks yesterday because they went so late. And now, once they're in the room and they're deliberating, which I know they're only supposed to deliberate when all of them are in the room, not if someone has stepped out briefly, I mean, how do those typically go once they do have this case in their hands?

MORENO: Well, have you ever seen the movie "12 Angry Men"? I mean, it can be that dramatic.


MORENO: It absolutely can range. I have done a lot of postmortems on juries. What was the room like?

And it can be very heated, especially when the stakes are high. And I believe these jurors in one sense know that the stakes are high. But, in another, it is just a fraud case. It just happens to involve this particular defendant, but it's a fraud case.

So it can really vary back in the deliberating room, but it's usually quite dramatic. And there's a lot of discussion, sometimes heated, that goes on. And they will take a straw vote. They may take a straw vote in the very beginning and say, how many people think this? And what about the charges?

And maybe -- maybe they want to convict on just 11 of the checks that Mr. Trump had personally signed. Who knows? But I sense there's going to be a lot of discussion in the room.

COLLINS: Yes, that's safe to say.

Linda, thank you for joining us as we wait to have the jury actually get this case.

I should note, as the judge is continuing to walk through business -- falsifying business records in the law here in the state of New York, Trump is slouched in his chair with his chin resting on his chest. He is someone who, once the jury does get this case, that they will -- he and his legal team will remain here at the courthouse until that verdict has been reached.

As long as the jury is here, Trump and his team will be here as well, given no one knows how long it will take the jury to reach a verdict in this case.

And, Paula, I mean, that's so notable, in and of itself, because, obviously, Trump has had to be here every day of this trial. We have all seen him inside the courtroom. We have seen him speak coming in and out. But the idea that he will have to go into a separate room with his team and just wait is remarkable.

REID: I would not want to be in that room. I mean, he is going to be really unhappy.

It's not the nicest courthouse. He's made it clear he does not particularly like the facilities, is not -- being here. Nobody likes being a criminal defendant. He's clearly not happy with the case, but that is going to be a very uncomfortable room. And it's going to be a challenge for the people who are there to support him, to keep him occupied, keep his mind occupied, keep him focused on something else.

Otherwise, it's going to be a long few days.

BERMAN: Utterly helpless. He will be utterly helpless during those moments.

COLLINS: And, right now, Judge Merchan is repeating much of what he said earlier on the law in this section.

I mean, the other -- the jury room, though, will be more fascinating, potentially, maybe, than the room that Trump is in, as Linda makes a great point there, that this is a jury that's been sitting next to each other.

But she said, from what she's heard in her postmortems, it can get kind of dramatic or quite dramatic inside that room, as these people -- as the judge is clearly urging them to come to a unanimous decision on this.

BERMAN: And you can know fairly quickly in a jury room which way it's going to go, because, often, but not always, often, one of the things the jury does is goes behind closed doors and takes an initial poll about where they all stand.

REID: Yes.

BERMAN: And that's when you figure out, how much back-and-forth will there really be over the next several hours or maybe even days?

REID: What's incredible about this case, compared to so many others that I have covered, is that I have personally been here every day. You have as well. We see every single word that is uttered inside that court.

It's unclear to me how this is going to go. You listen to legal analysts, legal experts, people have opinions across the entire spectrum, from acquittal, to complete conviction, to a mixed -- some sort of mixed verdict.


But you think of 12 people, 34 counts, the stakes, the complexity. It is absolutely unclear how this is going to go. But what happens in that jury room, I agree, there's going to be a lot of questions. And this could take some time.

And I think, given the stakes, given who we're talking about, what we're talking about, the odds of this getting heated inside that jury room, that's -- is probably pretty high. And we know these folks have all been paying attention.

They likely all have drawn some of their own conclusions. And it's going to take quite a bit of time, I think, to reach any kind of consensus, if they can even reach a consensus.

BERMAN: And questions about doubt... REID: Yes.

BERMAN: ... reasonable doubt, tend to be good for the defense.

Questions about the mountain of evidence, well, what about the details on this singular document, how should we read that, if they're paying attention to the physical evidence, the prosecution might likely be happier.

COLLINS: Also, do some of them believe Michael Cohen? Do they believe parts of Michael Cohen's testimony? How do they all feel about that is also going to be part of this.

And for the Trump team, I mean, they're bracing for a guilty verdict here.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: But Trump himself, based on -- on what I have heard that he's been saying to people, still seems to be holding out. He always has this idea that he personally can sway people and that his presence -- that he kind of is sometimes the exception to things -- that he could be acquitted by these jurors.

I mean, he's looked at them every day as well as they have come into that room, exited that room, and sat there and listened to the mountains of testimony.

REID: Well, I think that's probably wishful thinking, based on everything that we know, but that's not uncommon for defendants, right?

It's an extraordinarily stressful, miserable thing to be a criminal defendant. So I think a lot of people tell themselves that. As I understand it from talking to my sources on his legal team, they believe the best hope, likely hope for them, is a deadlocked jury.

But what they're concerned about is that if the jury comes back and they're deadlocked, what happens in the state of New York is, the judge will issue what is called an Allen charge or a dynamite charge.

And, there, he will tell the jury, he will say, look, I'm going to send you back to continue deliberating. Try to find some consensus to avoid a mistrial. And I'm told there's a concern that, if the jury gets that instruction, that they may feel pressure, the weight of this case, the historic nature, the resources that have been expended, and they may then try to compromise and maybe convict him on a few charges.

They're especially worried about the checks that he signed. So they believe that, even if the jury comes back initially and they're deadlocked, they're not out of the woods. But they pretty much think a deadlocked jury, a mistrial, is their greatest hope here.

COLLINS: But, also, I imagine he will tell them, just because it's unpleasant in that room or being here for seven weeks now, that doesn't mean you should make a decision just because you want to hurry up and go home, that you still have to execute your ability as a fair juror to come to the best decision possible.

BERMAN: He will send them back. What they decide to do once they're back is up to them.

REID: Yes.


Jake, obviously, notable, we could just be minutes away from all the jury being in that jury room.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Absolutely, Kaitlan. Thanks so much.

And let's -- let's talk more about what they have to think about and contemplate.

One of the interesting notes -- let's -- if we go to full screen 48 -- is Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor, in his closing statement yesterday, acknowledging Michael Cohen's frailties as a star witness.

"We didn't choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. We didn't pick him up at the witness store," Steinglass said. "The defendant chose Michael Cohen as his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on Mr. Trump's behalf."

Karen, you think -- I know that that's -- even though we all got a giggle out of witness store yesterday, I know this is not unknown to be said by prosecutors in trials, but you think that's going to be effective potentially?

KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I mean, look, yes, another common phrase prosecutors use is, I wish that a crime would be committed in front of a bus full of nuns, but it's not. And people who commit crimes tend to be around other like-minded people.

And you get a cast of characters chosen by the person who's committing the crime, especially in a conspiracy where people get together and agree to commit a crime together. And so you're left with who you're left with.

And Donald Trump -- I mean, I think the jury will see that the people Donald Trump surrounded himself back in 2016 and 2017, and even before that, were him with a porn star, were him with -- David Pecker and he were close friends, right?

I mean, that was a whole other colorful person. And he -- it's -- it's -- I think you said yesterday, it's like the bar scene in "Star Wars," right?


FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: I mean, it's really fascinating to see the type and quality of people that Donald Trump has around him. And Michael Cohen is exhibit A. TAPPER: Yes, Mos Eisley's Cantina is precisely what it is.


TAPPER: But, in any case, a nerd factor, not withstanding, if we go to full screen 43, something that Todd Blanche said, the defense attorney, about Michael Cohen: "He's the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, literally. He lied to you repeatedly. He lied many, many, many times before you even met him. He's literally the greatest liar of all time, the GLOAT," G-L-O-A-T."


And this, Elie, is based -- this was the main thrust, I think it's fair to say, of the defense's closing arguments, is, how could you go by what this man is saying? He even lied to you, jury.

Right now, Merchan is explaining motive to jurors and the difference between motive and intent. What is the difference between motive and intent?


ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: OK, I'm glad you asked that.

Motive is the reason why you do something. For example, I'm going to -- I will use the bank robbery example everyone always does -- I'm going to -- my motive for going in and robbing the bank is to get money. Or I guess the argument here would be, the motive for what Donald Trump did was to try to rig the election or favor himself in the election.

Intent is much more simple than that. Intent just means, do you understand the nature of what it is you're doing? Like, are you of right mind? It's a much lower standard. It's also more relevant. The jury does not have to find motive. They don't have to find why. They only have to find intent, that he knew and understood what was happening around him, essentially.

TAPPER: Let's turn to Anna Cominsky. She's the director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at New York Law School. Also with us, David Oscar Markus. He's a criminal defense attorney who was approached to be part of Donald Trump's legal team in the classified documents case, but he declined.

Anna, let me start with you. What do you make of the case so far? Do you think that the defense has proven reasonable doubt?

ANNA COMINSKY, CRIMINAL DEFENSE CLINIC DIRECTOR, NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL: Well, so the defense doesn't have any burden here. So the question is whether the prosecution has met their burden.


COMINSKY: And I have said this before and I will say it again. If the jury evaluates every witness that they have seen and they

accept the testimony of every witness, they accept all the documents, they don't question anything about the recordings, they could find that the prosecution has proven their case.

But that's a very big if. And one of the things that we don't get to see, right, when we're out here and they're in there, evaluating the testimony, evaluating how people testify, is, it's not just the words, but it's how they're spoken, how the jury's perceiving that.

And so that credibility determination is really going to be huge here. And that's something that we just can't tell, right? That's what's going to happen when they go back and they deliberate. That's what they're really going to be talking about.

TAPPER: And, right now, inside that courtroom, Judge Merchan still giving the jury instructions, telling the jurors that, on each count, all 34 of them, their verdict must be unanimous.

David Oscar Markus, what do you think of the case right now as the jurors are prepared to take all the evidence that's been presented over the last month and make a decision?

Merchan, by the way, saying: "That is, each and every juror must agree to it." In case anybody in the jury did not know what unanimous meant, it has now been defined for them. The judge is now giving instructions about how the jury should deliberate.


DAVID OSCAR MARKUS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: The jury must be overwhelmed. I mean, to have all of these instructions just read to them without them getting a copy is going to be overwhelming for them.

And, also, it's crazy that the lawyers were not able to discuss the instructions in their closings yesterday. Typically, lawyers can go through the instructions and explain why they have met them or why the government hasn't met them.

And they weren't able to do that yesterday, which I find bizarre. I think the lawyers should have been able to do that, because the jurors right now must be wondering, what is this all about?


Judge Merchan saying right now -- quote -- "When you deliberate, you should do so with a view toward reaching an agreement, if that can be done without surrendering individual judgment."

Anna, why was it not done? Why were these instructions not given yesterday, so the lawyers would have them as they made their closing arguments?

COMINSKY: Well, given the complexity of this case and the arguments that we know have been made about sort of the interpretations of these laws, right, I think what the judge was doing was saying, I'm not -- I do not want that line crossed.

I am the one who provides the jurors with the law. You provide them with your arguments about the facts and what conclusions and characterizations you want to draw. And so I'm going to make sure that stays firmly with me. And, therefore, neither side gets to have the instructions, read from the instructions.

You know, I agree it's -- it's a hard balance trying to figure out how much law can you incorporate into your summation and how much should be left to the judge, when we know that it is that ultimately the judge's job.

On the other hand, as lawyers, we want to be able to point the jurors to specific things, whether it's, as the prosecutor, saying, here's how I have met my burden, or, as the defense, saying, here's how they failed to meet their burden.

TAPPER: So, right now, Merchan is saying: "You may also have the testimony of any witness read back to you in whole or in part. When you deliberate, you should do so with a view towards reaching agreement" and just giving instructions as to how they are supposed to go about this process.


Merchan tells the jury: "Under the law, the first juror selected is the foreperson. Several jurors turn to look at the man seated in the first seat."

Merchan also telling them: "You may seek any and all of the exhibits that were received into evidence. You may also have the testimony of any witness read back to you in whole or in part."

So, David, again, these are -- these are fairly standard instructions, but, as you note, a pretty momentous decision for them.

MARKUS: Well, it is a weird quirk in New York law that the foreperson is selected already.

In most courts, the jury would elect their own foreperson and start their deliberations that way. So I think that is a little odd. There's a bunch of odd things that we have seen in New York law, like the prosecution getting their full closing last, as opposed to going first and last, where the defense gets to respond.

So I think the fact that the jurors know who the foreperson is, looked at them was interesting to start the deliberations out.

TAPPER: So, Merchan is telling -- he's describing the process of how the verdict itself will play out. He said the foreperson will be asked if the jury has reached a verdict, and then the foreperson will read out the verdict for each of the 34 counts.

Again, this is pretty standard stuff, but it does take on the weight of the fact that a former president of the United States is the defendant in this case. And -- but this is pretty -- pretty standard. Anna, how often do jurors ask for -- and I -- you -- there's probably

no study on this or anything like that, but, in your experience, how often do jurors ask for something to be read back to the jury or for an exhibit to be introduced?

COMINSKY: So, quite often, in particular, when you have a case that's gone on, like this case has, over several weeks, with 22 witnesses. It's very common for them to ask for readbacks.

And, of course, then what will happen is, when they ask for readbacks, all of us will start reading into, why did they ask for that particular portion? What is it that we think that we're doing? Where do we think they're leaning?

And so that will be telling to us if they do start to ask for readbacks, but it would not surprise me at all if they did ask for readbacks, given the length of the case, the number of witnesses, the number of documents.

TAPPER: All right, Anna Cominsky, David Oscar Markus, thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

Judge Merchan right now saying the jurors will be polled individually if they agree with the verdict at the request of the parties, meaning that won't necessarily happen unless the defense or the prosecution requests each juror to stand up and say how they feel about each one of these counts.

Merchan says he added language on the verdict sheet to make clear which counts pertains to a voucher, an invoice or check, and the document's relevant date, because the actual counts don't have that. So he has added that information. It might just say falsification of business record on April 14 -- I'm making it up -- 2017.

He -- Judge Merchan has now added that additional information so that they can understand better each one of these 34 chances -- 34 charges.

Trump has just passed another note to Todd Blanche, his attorney. Blanche wrote a response and Trump held the paper up close to his face to read it before placing it back on the table.

The Merch -- the judge is saying the jurors may only discuss the case when all 12 jurors are together. Merchan says the jury will work until 4:30 p.m. East Coast time today. "We will figure out the other days going forward," he said.

What's normal for a case like this in terms of how long the jury will take?


TAPPER: Is there a normal?

COATES: There is not a normal. They're also -- they're going to -- they -- if the jury wants to stay late going forward, it's unlikely they'd work later than 6:00 p.m. So, again...


TAPPER: Unless they were right close to a verdict.


COATES: Unless they were close to a verdict.


COATES: And they could request that.

And the judge has now concluded his jury charge, meaning the instructions portion is over. And now the ball...

TAPPER: So, the judge has -- yes, the judge has just concluded his instructions to the jury.

So we are now at the moment where the jury is about to be -- dismissed is not the word, but they're allowed to go into the jury room, and the case will be in the hands of these 12 men and women.

COATES: And, of course, remember that there were alternates that were present throughout the course of this trial.

TAPPER: Are they just dismissed?

COATES: They will go to a different part of the courtroom to wait for the time that the actual jurors are deliberating, because they might be called on for any reason.

It's actually pretty surprising, because, up to now, they haven't had anyone be replaced at this point in time, but they will be available to be there in case there is that moment. And they will have heard all the evidence, all the instructions as well.

Now the lawyers are conferring at the bench at this point in time. But this is such a consequential moment. Up until now, they have been talked at. Now they will talk with one another.

That includes, of course, two attorneys who are present. But what they're going to have back there is not the question of, hey, do you think Donald Trump is guilty? It's 34 separate counts of falsified business documents, invoices, ledgers and checks.


And for each one of those things, they have to decide whether there was the intent to defraud, to commit another crime, to conceal the commission of another crime, to cause a false entry.


TAPPER: Why aren't you putting up... (CROSSTALK)

COATES: I didn't put the tablet, because you have been so huffy about my tablet.


COATES: Why did you put up the tablet?


COATES: I'm giving you a break just now.


TAPPER: I'm not huffy about it.

COATES: All right, well, put...


TAPPER: Put up the tablet.


COATES: Jake said it's OK now. We can put up the tablet.



COATES: OK, here we go. The tablet...


TAPPER: It's just a time -- to everything, there is a season.


COATES: It's not even coming up. See? You see what I mean? You don't have the clout. The tablet does not exist.


TAPPER: There it is. There's the tablet.

COATES: Oh, the tablet is here.


COATES: So, for every one of these 34 counts, they have got to prove the following things, each of these things you're already talking about.

Perhaps one of the most important part are the idea of making or causing a false entry. Why? Because he need not be the person to have actually written the false entry. And, remember, they look like the different dates.

All these different dates we're talking about are all going to be the moments in time that this jury has to decide these various issues. And it's going to be quite consequential. But, remember, here's what we're talking about, 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, 11 checks, essentially.

All are possible for this judge -- this jury to essentially have a variety of different decisions.

TAPPER: And that adds up to 34, by the way.

COATES: To 34.

TAPPER: If everybody's -- where the 34 counts are -- give it again.

There are 34 counts, and they break down for...

COATES: To 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, and 11 different checks.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

COATES: Now, how many of the ledgers...

TAPPER: What -- what's it mean 12 vouchers? What...

COATES: Well, these are mostly the ledgers, and that can be part of it, the reimbursements. This is how the prosecution has put their exhibit in front of the jury on these very important points.

Now, there's...


DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: And, Laura, while those -- while those things may be tied together...


CHALIAN: ... they are the individual charges, right?

So the jury will sort of look at them individually, each one, even though, as a system, an invoice, a check or whatever may be perceived as something of a whole.

COATES: Right. Again...

TAPPER: Right, but it can be -- it could be five guilty and 29 not guilty, et cetera.

CHALIAN: Exactly. Right.

TAPPER: But let me -- just one quick thing.

Judge Merchan wanted one clarification, telling the foreperson of the jury, don't sign the form with your actual name...


TAPPER: ... an important thing for his...



TAPPER: ... because we know -- we know it's a him -- his safety, because it's pretty -- actually pretty remarkable that nobody has been doxxed at this point on the jury, thank God.

It's -- we don't want them to. But that nobody has been outed as a member of the jury, that's -- it's really...

COATES: It is.

TAPPER: CHALIAN: Or knowingly chased down a street or any...


TAPPER: Not that we know of, yes.


COATES: Well, they have been taking to different locations, we have heard, after the conclusion of every day of trial and brought to just unknown places.

But, remember, they have to decide -- to your point, they have to decide whether there is acquittal or conviction each of those 34 different documents. And there are -- to go back to the tablet, there are possible outcomes here.

It could be a mixed verdict. It could be guilty on all counts of every single one of them. It could be an acquittal, or it could be this mixed verdict here.

And why this is important is because the reason that the defense was trying to suggest at least about the idea of Michael Cohen padding the invoices, it could be that they suggest that, on those documents handed in by Michael Cohen, that Trump did not have the requisite amount of knowledge or intent.

They could also have a hung jury. And they would have to have what's called an Allen charge for them to go back and consider and get to an ultimate result. There could also be a directed verdict, where the judge, unlikely to do so, could essentially say, well, I don't believe that what you have decided is appropriate, and I could make a different outcome.

But there's a lot of things now. The point is, it's all in the jury's hands now. And the prosecution and the defense can do nothing more. They cannot speak with the jurors. They cannot try to engage. Only these 12 can converse with one another.

TAPPER: Who here has been on a jury before? Who -- OK, Karen, and... CHALIAN: Grand jury, not a trial.

HONIG: That doesn't count. Totally different.


TAPPER: David, grand jury, and Jamie and Karen.

So I have questions for you.

Judge Merchan saying: "I was just clarifying how we were going to handle the evidence. I'm told there is a laptop that contains all the evidence."

He asks for volunteers to be taught how to use the laptop.



TAPPER: Jurors four and six volunteered.

Those jurors four and six, they're always -- they always have that can-do American attitude.



TAPPER: What? What?

GANGEL: ... juror number four is a security engineer, just...

TAPPER: Juror six?

GANGEL: And the sixth juror is a software engineer.

TAPPER: OK, well, don't -- that's all we want to know about them.


TAPPER: That's all we -- the jurors are now leaving the courtroom to deliberate. The alternates are staying behind.

There are the -- there are jurors. There they are. And, as you said, Jamie, juror number four, security engineer, no social media, shockingly, three kids, juror six, software engineer, and a recent college graduate.

Wow. Imagine if you just graduated, and this is your entry into the real world.


FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: The interesting thing about that laptop that they're sending back with the juror that has all the -- the jurors -- that has the evidence on it, they have to make sure that that laptop is wiped clean of any other evidence from prior cases, prior trials.

So it's actually a special trial laptop that goes through a special protocol.

TAPPER: Well, they get that BleachBit that gets rid of everything...


TAPPER: ... that is -- that we have talked about in previous years.


TAPPER: So, let me ask you a question, Karen and Jamie.

I'm not going to count you, David, because it's a grand jury.


TAPPER: What do you do when you -- so, you get into the room. What happens? You sit down and you -- you poll everybody?