Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers. It was another packed week in People v. Trump. Starting with the defendant's 10th contempt finding, it featured striking testimony from Stormy Daniels, while prosecutors built their case with documents ahead of Michael Cohen's grand entrance. The showdown between Donald Trump and his former fixer is slated for Monday in Manhattan.
That 10th contempt finding kicked off the week with the latest gag order ruling against the defendant. Judge Juan Merchan said that a Trump statement against jurors last month violated the court order restricting his menacing speech. Merchan said jail wasn't needed yet but might be next time. The threat of imprisonment hovered over the rest of the week — as it will the rest of the trial.
In that trial, jurors saw documents and drama, with witnesses ranging from the dry-but-important to the more salacious with Daniels' appearance. Besides the adult film actress, prosecutors presented evidence of the falsified business records that Trump allegedly used to cover up the hush money scheme.
They also highlighted Trump's books that, in his own words, portrayed him as an obsessive financial micromanager. The implication is that there's no way that someone that obsessive wouldn't have known about the scheme. Expect prosecutors to emphasize the presumptive GOP nominee's damning writings in summation.
And then there was Daniels. She detailed her claimed sexual encounter with Trump in 2006, when she was 27 and he was 60, and how she was paid to stifle her story ahead of the 2016 election. Seeing her testimony, it's understandable why Trump wanted to silence her, especially right after the "Access Hollywood" fiasco. Merchan complained that the witness' testimony was too detailed (which is odd considering that the defense says she's lying), but he rejected Trump's mistrial bid on that score.
Instead, the defense was left with an aggressive cross-examination that might have inadvertently humanized Daniels. Trump lawyer Susan Necheles seemingly mounted what my MSNBC colleague Lisa Rubin called a "nuts and sluts" defense to try and discredit the porn star. That approach may have backfired, but we'll see what the jury says.
Michael Cohen is the next big witness set to testify, likely on Monday. There's been a lot of discussion about his credibility, which isn't a non-issue. But I don't think it's the ultimate issue, as prosecutors have been methodically building their case over the past few weeks. Jurors have already heard other witnesses not only denigrate Cohen but at least partly corroborate his likely testimony about the scheme.
That doesn't mean Cohen's testimony won't be contentious — perhaps even more so than Daniels'. The most significant action may come in the parts of his testimony that aren't corroborated, such as any conversations with Trump amounting to direct evidence of his guilt because intent is critical in this case. When Cohen is being crossed, remember this question: Even if a point makes him look bad, does it detract from Trump's guilt?
The prosecution could rest next week, as they told Merchan on Friday that they expect to have two more witnesses. From there, the question will be what sort of case the defense wants to put on, including whether Trump himself testifies. Remember, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has no burden, but we'll see if this defendant can help himself.
Meanwhile, we were reminded that this case could be Trump's only criminal trial. In Florida, Judge Aileen Cannon indefinitely postponed a classified documents trial, leading my MSNBC colleague Steve Benen to aptly recall Trump mentor Roy Cohn's famous quote: "Don't tell me what the law is, tell me who the judge is." In Georgia, the state appeals court is taking up the defense quest to disqualify Fani Willis, putting any Fulton County trial in further doubt.
In Trump's Washington, D.C., case, we're still waiting for the Supreme Court to issue the immunity ruling that's been holding up a federal election interference trial. The justices handed down decisions on copyright and civil forfeiture on Thursday. In addition to needlessly bolstering police forfeiture regimes in the latter case, these rulings remind us that the court is in no rush to let Trump be tried in D.C.
We're expecting more rulings Thursday from the justices as Manhattan prosecutors potentially wrap up their case.
Have any questions or comments for me? I'd love to hear from you! Please email deadlinelegal@nbcuni.com for a chance to be featured in a future newsletter.
