Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Jury Resumes Deliberations in Trump Trial; Court Resumes with Judge Re-Reading Jury Instructions. Aired 9:30-10a ET

Aired May 30, 2024 - 09:30   ET

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

[09:30:00]

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Witness for the prosecution. And so to listen to, you know, what they are interested in, obviously we're just reading tea leaves, but it could shed some light, you know, the only insight we have into what those deliberations are centering on.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean most of this right now is a lot of guessing, what the jury is going to do, why the jury is interested in certain pieces of evidence. One of the things that they had asked for was David Pecker's testimony about a Trump Tower meeting. They also asked for Michael Cohen's testimony about the same Trump Tower meeting. I talked to a number of legal experts who said that could be them trying to corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony know that the defense painted him as somebody who did not tell the truth.

But when it comes to David Pecker, the interesting thing about a lot of his testimony was the fact that the prosecution focused so heavily on it in the closing arguments. They called it damning. They said that it was critical to the crime that was being committed. So, that might play into why exactly they were calling to rehear some of the portions of David Pecker's testimony.

Again, these were people who were friends, Donald Trump and David Pecker, for decades. Pecker himself testifying that he believed that Donald Trump did not want these stories out there in "The National Enquirer" because of the campaign, not necessarily because of his family.

COLLINS: How does the Trump team feel about the fact that this was the - these were the first notes? Do they have any inkling of whether they think it's good for them?

HOLMES: They have no idea. They have no idea. I think right now it's a guessing game. One of the things I reported last night was that they've been trying to read the tea leaves with the jury. We know that they brought in, as you mentioned, several different lawmakers, donors, allies. One of the things that those people were doing when they were observing was observing the jury and relaying back to the Trump team what they saw. Some lawmakers who were more recognizable said that they thought some of the jurors looked at them favorably. They said at least one juror, they believed, was nodding along with Todd Blanche, essentially when he was questioning Michael Cohen. Now, they will be the first to admit they have no idea if this is

accurate and if it's true or if these people were just being polite and making eye contact. But it goes to show you how little anybody knows. They're grasping at straws to try to kind of glean any information they can about where this jury's head is at. H COLLINS: Yes, and as we've heard from other trial attorneys, you know, they've thought certain jurors were on their side, only to find out that was actually the one who pushed them over the line.

Paula, the - you know, we already know part of what this court reporter is going to be reading back to - to the jury, and they don't have transcripts of the testimony in front of them, which is interesting because they do have a laptop that has the exhibits of the evidence on there, but they don't have the actual testimony that they can read through themselves. But we do know part of it is, you know, when there were questions about with - between David Pecker and Dylan Howard and question - who was also working for him at "The National Enquirer." And he was asking about that Trump Tower meeting and how they set it up. And, of course, that was the infamous meeting in the August of 2015, right before Trump - when Trump was becoming a candidate, where they were talking about this deal that they had hatched where David Pecker would be the eyes and ears for the Trump campaign.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yes. And this is such a key moment because prosecutors argue this was the first step in this alleged conspiracy. And the fact that they're asking about this specific testimony, it suggests that they're going through the case chronologically. Why? Well, because, obviously, Michael Cohen testified to a lot. David Pecker testified to a lot. But the Trump Tower meeting back in 2015, when prosecutors did their closing, they argued that this is where the conspiracy began. That they all agreed that they were going to try to suppress negative stories. Why? To help Trump win in 2016.

And that's really significant for the prosecutor's case because they've charged the eventual falsifying of business records as a felony because they said all of this was done as part of a conspiracy to help Trump win in 2016.

So, this request, again, it suggests that the jury probably went in there, took a poll on all the charges, maybe reviewed their instructions, and started at the beginning. That also tells us that we could be here for a few days.

COLLINS: Yes, and the other interesting thing is they had questions about Karen McDougal, this - the jury did. And the jury can only communicate with the judge via a note, which is also complicates this process. That's why he wasn't clear if they wanted all of the jury instructions read back to them or just part of it. Hopefully they have clarity on that.

And I should note, we're waiting any moment now for this to begin underway in court. But another part was about Karen McDougal and a conversation that David Pecker had with Donald Trump but Karen McDougal where called - Trump called to him. He said he was in his office. His assistant transferred the call. And Trump said, I spoke to Michael, referring to Michael Cohen, and he said, I wanted to talk to you about Karen McDougal. And he was asking if there was some group that's out there interested in buying her story for $8 million. David Pecker said he didn't think it was true, but he did tell Trump he thought he should buy her story. Ultimately, of course, David Pecker bought it. But it's interesting that that is also something that the jury is interested in because all of that was talking about really just the efforts all related to the - to the campaign itself.

HOLMES: Yes, there's a couple of notes about that call. One, Donald Trump alludes that he had a conversation with Michael Cohen. He doesn't go over what Michael Cohen told him, but he mentions Karen McDougal. At one point he says, she's a nice girl.

Then when he asks Pecker about if he should buy the story, Pecker says, yes. He says, I don't buy stories because they always get out anyway.

[09:35:04]

But we know that Michael Cohen still was part of this arrangement to pay Karen McDougal $150,000. Now, where that ended, part of the reason is that Pecker kept asking Cohen for payment back. But then what we know is that Pecker had a conversation with his general counsel. We have no idea what was said in that. But after that, and based on that conversation, he went back to Cohen and said, the deal is off. I'm not selling you the life rights that I purchased for $150,000. We're done here. I don't want to do it anymore.

And that, obviously, is going to be a question mark as to what exactly the lawyer said. And even in court when they were questioning, they said they can't get into that conversation because it's attorney- client privilege. But that is part of what they well go over today.

COLLINS: And it's just - this is the first time the jury will all be back in the courtroom since they were there yesterday, where the judge brought them in, was asking them, do you want this reread back to you. They nodded their heads, I believe, in acknowledgment that, yes, they did. And so they'll all be back in the courtroom.

You know, Trump is there. The parties are there. As they're all - no one knows what is happening because the only person who can communicate with the jury is the judge. And that's only through a note at this moment.

REID: Yes, I think the jury watching is really going to reach a fever pitch, looking to see, do they look tense, do they look tired, do they look annoyed, how attentive are they being because throughout this case this jury has been so incredibly attentive. I think some of us have been even surprised that we haven't lost more jurors who just didn't want to be part of this, didn't want to be involved in something so high profile, that can come at a cost in terms of threats to you and your family.

So, this jury has taken their job so seriously throughout this process. But I think as they have this red back, now that we know there are deliberations, I think the prosecutors, the defense team, the reporters, it's just natural. Everyone's going to be watching them. But I - looking at the specific portions of transcript, I cannot figure out what exactly the dispute is.

COLLINS: It's like solving a puzzle.

REID: It is. The only thing I can say is it appears that they're starting at the very beginning.

COLLINS: Yes. And, of course, every time that buzzer goes off in the courtroom, which happened twice yesterday, kind of sends everyone into a frenzy, John, obviously, as we are waiting to see, you know, what exactly the questions are and that the juror has - the jury has about this particular transcript. And also if that buzzer goes off any other times today, letting us know that the jury has a note or even potentially a verdict.

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Verdict watch and buzzer watch, I think is now what we - what we're facing over the coming - over the coming minutes, Kaitlan.

We're going to get back to Kaitlan, Paula and Kristen very soon, as we are all - we'll show you live pictures from outside the courthouse. Donald Trump is inside and we're about to head back in. We know he is in the courtroom speaking to his son, who is there along with him. And the judge will be in there soon. And then the jury heads back into deliberations.

A lot of questions. What's going to happen first. And we're all going to find out together.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:13]

COLLINS: And welcome back to CNN's special live coverage.

A bit of an update for you since we were last talking. The - now the jury has sent another note to the court inside this case, just about eight minutes ago. It is 9:32 a.m. Our reporters inside the room said that the judge announced that they had received another note. This note has two requests in it. What remains to be seen is what those requests are from this jury. What else they need a clarification on or what else they would like to have repeated to them.

Already they've asked for the judge to reread the jury instructions to them. The jury instructions that he spent about an hour on yesterday. They also wanted to hear key parts of testimony from too critical witnesses in this case, David Pecker, the tabloid king from "The National Enquirer," and also Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney and fixer.

So, we are waiting to see, Paula and Kristen, what these two requests are. But - but, I mean, if the jury just got back in the room this morning, they already have two requests. Right now Judge Merchan says the jury requests - he reread the jury instructions beginning with how it considers facts and what inferences can be drawn from them. So, that was closer to the end of the jury instructions. Maybe midway through from yesterday, if I remember correctly. And it was essentially, you know, the question is, what is - what's the part of the jury instructions that they're confused by or maybe there's some disagreement and they just wanted to have it repeated so they could all be on the same page.

REID: Yes, they're also asking to hear instructions related to count one. So, this is a good sign because the judge was concerned, I think, that they wanted all 55 pages read back. But here they're hoping to clarify exactly what it is that they need. And the judge has said that he'll include all the disputed testimony.

So, now they're going to go through and he says he's going to read pages six to 35 of the jury instructions. And I'm skipping ahead on the side stream. But that's a considerable amount of what he read yesterday. I mean that's almost half the jury instructions that he's going to have to read back. That's going to take a while. So, this could take maybe up to two hours to get through all this.

COLLINS: Well, and this is interesting, and I believe what he's saying when he says, the disputed testimony.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: There was disagreement over what parts exactly they were going to read back to them. There was a part where the defense wanted them to include, when they re-read the testimony, where David Pecker said that Stormy Daniels was not part of their deal. That was when Emil Bove, Trump's attorney, was questioning him on cross-examination and he confirmed, yes, she wasn't part of the deal. There was a dispute over whether or not they could include that.

The jury is also requesting headphones to use with their evidence laptop. Obviously, you don't want everyone listening to the same thing on one laptop. But it is interesting of what exactly it is that they're asking for because it really helps us give clues into what exactly they're deliberating about.

HOLMES: Yes, this is a win for actually both sides here because there was a couple of things that both the prosecution and the defense wanted in that were in dispute that the judge said, give me the night to look at and decide and we'll go through everything else now. Now he's obviously saying, they're going to include it all. Some of the stuff was that the defense wanted in was part cross-examination.

[09:45:03]

The jury specifically asked for headphones to fit a 35 millimeter headphone jack. COLLINS: This feels like me on like a Delta flight asking for headphones -

HOLMES: Yes.

COLLINS: Because I don't have - I only have like Airpods. But I think they're asking for these. I mean this is - for people who are confused, this is a laptop, an evidence laptop, that they got.

REID: Yes.

COLLINS: There were two jurors. Juror number four and juror number six, who are the - going to be the custodians of this evidence laptop. They even stayed in court a little bit longer yesterday to make sure that they knew how to use it. And now they're asking for headphones and for the prosecution suggesting they get speakers for this. But it also kind of seems to indicate that this is not going to be ending anytime soon.

REID: No.

COLLINS: That they're not - you know, yesterday was -

HOLMES: They clearly think they have more to listen to.

COLLINS: Right.

HOLMES: Yes.

COLLINS: Were they reaching a verdict yesterday. That was a question. I mean it's all speculation at this point. But, clearly, they are meticulously going through all this evidence.

REID: Yes. What we can kind of glean is that they're going through methodically and chronologically. And it's a reminder that when that buzzer sounds, it can be anything from possibly a verdict to a question about substance to a request for supplies to a request for snacks. So, I think we're probably going to hear that buzzer a few more times today. I know people get, you know, pretty excited. They speculate. But just a reminder, there's a broad spectrum of things that they can request. But this is going to take a little while for them to have the jury instructions read back and the portions of testimony, which will include pretty much the max that we anticipated. So, this will take a little while. Jury deliberations may not get underway until maybe after 11.

COLLINS: And this is interesting because Merchan says that the jury is requesting the rereading of the judge's instructions, beginning with how the jury considers facts, what inferences can be drawn from that, including the rain metaphor. That was where he was basically saying, you know, use your reasonable judgment on this. That if you went to bet and you didn't see it rain, but you woke up and it was wet outside, then obviously you can reasonably infer that it did in fact rain while you were asleep.

He was essentially telling them, you know, to use their best judgment and reason as they're making these critical decisions.

HOLMES: Yes, it's interesting to me that they want to hear that - read back with that metaphor. I mean talking about inference, right? So, they're clearly trying to figure out if there are missing parts, what you can infer, how much you can infer, and what that looks like given the metaphor there.

So, again, I do believe that this means that it's going to be a lot longer, particularly that requests for headphones kind of feels like there's a lot of people who have stuff to listen to now. So, maybe not (INAUDIBLE) -

COLLINS: Are they all sharing the headphones.

HOLMES: Yes, exactly.

COLLINS: I have a lot of questions.

HOLMES: Exactly.

COLLINS: Jeremy Herb, our reporter in the room, helpfully sends that exact metaphor from the judge's instructions. And I'll just read it. He said, for example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining. You wake up in the morning, you look out your window, you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet and that people are carrying raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and the sidewalk and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

It was just really a helpful way for the judge to explain to the jury, use your common sense here. You are people who have lived experiences and you can use that as you're making judgments, as you're looking through what this evidence is and what the testimony is.

REID: And I think clearly there is some dispute about that. That's why they're having it read back. So, obviously, some jurors interpreted it one way, some interpreted it another way. Now, when it comes to the prosecution for them, for folks to make inferences is very significant because there are some missing pieces of the puzzle here, right? Keith Schiller, Allen Weisselberg, Michael Cohen is truly the only direct link to the falsified documents.

COLLINS: And just to note, the jury is entering the courtroom at this moment. They were not in the room as they were reading this note to the parties.

REID: And they have another long day ahead of them. That judge talked yesterday about maybe staying late yesterday. They got to go home at their usual time, maybe even a little early. But today this could be a long day of deliberations. Based on the questions, the things that we're seeing, it seems unlikely we'd get a verdict today. They appear to have a lot of work to do. And again, they're being attentive, they're being methodical, and they got a lot of questions. COLLINS: And, you know, we're just reading tea leaves. We're completely speculating on this. Because, you know, when you're actually in the room - I was talking to a juror last night in the Blagojevich case, it was - she was just describing how different it was in the room. That they did take votes of where is everyone's - where are we feeling on this? Looking at the evidence. Going through it meticulously, as she was talking about it.

But the rain metaphor is interesting, Kristen, because when the prosecution was giving its closing argument, they were appealing to jurors common sense and to say, maybe you didn't actually witness Donald Trump himself go into the computer program and classify this as a legal service, but you know that he caused it. Of course that's their argument that we're making. We'll see if the jury believes it. But it is interesting that the jury is asking to hear that part of the instructions.

HOLMES: I think so, too.

I will say, you know, at the bottom of this metaphor about making inference, it says there have to be facts that lead you to that. The rain, the water on the ground, people carrying umbrellas, et cetera, to kind of solidify that.

But I will also note that, again, as we have said, this case really hinges on Michael Cohen's testimony. So, part of what the prosecution also has to do is say that, can you make these inferences without just Michael Cohen's testimony?

[09:50:02]

Because, remember, Michael Cohen testified to a lot of this. Like he directly said that Trump knew about all of this. But some of what they're asking them to do is essentially corroborate Michael Cohen's testimony and the gaps in his testimony with the facts around all of that essentially.

COLLINS: Yes.

This is exciting. We've got now three notes from the jury as we are waiting for them. They've now entered the room. None of them looked in Donald Trump's direction, as they typically don't, as they make their way to the jury box to rehear this testimony, and the judge's instructions to them as they are continuing their deliberations, about five hours in.

This is CNN's special live coverage. Much more as the judge is beginning to read the notes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:10]

BERMAN: All right, the breaking news in the criminal case against Donald Trump. At this moment, the judge is reading - rereading parts of his instructions to the jury back to the jury. What you see in the left-hand side of your screen right now is exactly what the judge is reading. The jury asked to hear parts of the jury instruction specifically that dealt with the idea of facts and inference that can be drawn from facts.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

BERMAN: And specifically they want to know about something called the rain metaphor.

With us now, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, Jeremy Saland. Jim Schultz also with us from remote.

Joey, very quickly, the rain metaphor and what that might mean here.

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: OK, very important, right? A fact is a fact. I see it. I know it. It's substantively a fact. There are other things that are facts, but I may not see. Why is that critical here? Defense arguing that Cohen provides the only direct link. If that's the case, prosecutors say, not only do we have things like corroborate Cohen, but we have things we can draw inferences from what he said, right? Circumstantial evidence, John. What is circumstantial evidence? We all walk outside right now. We don't see a droplet of rain coming from the sky. But the cars seem to be wet. There are puddles that are in the street. There are other people who were wearing raincoat. What can we logically infer, that it was raining outside.

So, did you see it, John? Did you see it Kate? Did you see it, Jeremy? None of us saw it, but we could reasonably infer, based upon the surrounding circumstances, that it happened. That's the prosecution's main argument here. If the jury buys the circumstantial rain metaphor, it spells trouble for the defense.

JEREMY SALAND, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: And we'll throw out a little common sense. That's the other word we need in there as well, common sense.

JACKSON: Yes.

BOLDUAN: And also the rain metaphor sounds even more ominous the way Joey was describing it.

But, Jeremy, talk about - when you - if they want more information and we read the tea leaves on it, this is - this has the defense team sweating.

SALAND: Absolutely. Absolutely. Even if we don't see the sweat, but we see it over here on the lapel, we have that common sense.

BOLDUAN: Well played.

SALAND: Yes, so, absolutely, this seems favorable. We don't know. We're not there. But it seems very favorable. Even the reading of the first jury instruction - pardon me, of the first count of the indictment, that's not because they're really stuck on whether that particular item was a falsification of business records. That is all for the same 34 counts. They want to know what the elements are. This is moving and progressing in a right way for the prosecution.

BERMAN: And, Jim Schultz, if you are with us, in a way the prosecution's case is a rain metaphor case. It is the sidewalk is wet case - type of case. An inference from facts.

Now, we don't know why the jury wants to hear that. We don't know if there is, you know, 12 jurors who what to acquit but one jury is saying, we need to hear the rain metaphors, so I want to convince the other 12 of you. That could be it. But this is a sidewalk is wet type of case, isn't it?

JAMES SCHULTZ, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE LAWYER: Well, yes, it is. And I think this is just indicative of the discussions that they're having, right? And I think you hit it right on the - the nail right on the head. I think they're probably debating right now. Look, there's - there's not - if they don't believe Michael Cohen, right, then how - then how do they get there? And they have to get there through circumstantial evidence. And I think that's probably the internal debate going on right now. There are probably some jurors that are saying, I don't think it gets there. There are probably some other saying, yes, it does.

And as they continued to deliberate, they're going to want to hear so that - so that one - no matter what camp you're in, in that - in that jury room, you know, they - you're going to - they're going to want to hear, you know, what the judge has to say, what the instructions are as it relates to that circumstantial evidence so that they can try to come to some agreement.

COLLINS: One of the other things that came up is that the judge - one of the notes was that they wanted to - they wanted to be - they wanted to be re-read the first count. They wanted how this all relates to the first count.

And, Jeremy, just reinforce this point because if you think - its not about count one, because count two, three and four are the same.

SALAND: Correct. You in theoretically could find something was falsified and something wasn't, but it's the same elements. It doesn't matter. You can take out the factual piece, I mean what was allegedly falsified, whether it was an invoice or a check, but the elements are what's critical. And if they're asking for the circumstantial evidence and they're - want to know all this readback in terms of the jury instructions, it tells me to - you know, the point that was just made, it doesn't mean that everyone is on one side. There could be trying to convince a couple or a lot. But this is progressing. If I'm the prosecution, the way I want it to progress.

BERMAN: And, Joey, after all this is done, and this is going to take a while. All the readbacks well take, you know, maybe an hour here. After that, what are you watching for? Do you think this may be it from the jury, or do you think there will be more questions and about what?

JACKSON: So, John, hard to tell if it's it. We know what they're struggling with, right, for - based upon what they're asking for. Was there conspiracy or a coverup. That's the prosecution's theory. So they're going back. What did Pecker say?

[10:00:00]

What did Pecker say to Trump? What did Pecker, when they met with Cohen and Trump and Hope Hicks coming in and out of that meeting, what happened there?