Judge blasts Trump lawyer for slipping inappropriate remark into summation

So this was a moment right before lunch today, just as the defense, Trump's defense attorney, was finishing his summary, so basically the climax of Trump's final case before the jury

judge

, Maran seemed to get quite angry with Trump's defense. Council Judge Michan is not a man who is easily angered, but what happened in front of the jury was an objection from the prosecutor. At the end of Trump's closing statement, the prosecutor objected. Judge Marant sustained the objection, but then the jury was thrown out of the room and what happened after the jury was out. from the courtroom was one thing, it was a notable confrontation, it was a notable warning, um, to Trump's top Defense Council and it led to the jury being told something unexpected after they were brought back after lunch, so it was kind of a big drama involving Judge Maran of the day that's how it was Todd Blanch Trump's Defense Council I'm going to end this recap the same way I told you a few minutes ago that you know you can't trust him, referring to Michael Cohen, that's all. those lies lies under oath lies to your family Lies when it matters Lies when it doesn't matter all those lies put them aside for a moment that's enough to walk away but then he came here again meeting Michael Cohen he raised his right hand man and them lied to each of you repeatedly repeatedly you can't you can't send someone to prison you can't convict someone Stein glass the prosecutor objection Judge Maran held the Trump Council defense pale you can't convict someone based on the words of Michael Cohen so thank you for paying attention, I know it was a long morning, we looked at a lot of evidence, but it's important, it's important for President Trump, it's important, of course, for his family and I meant what I said at the beginning, it's clear that You all have been paying close attention. a lot of attention over the last 5 weeks and that matters, that is very important, you know this is not a referendum on your views on President Trump, this is not a referendum on who you voted for at the ballot box in 2016, 2020 or for Who do you plan to vote for? in 2024 that's not what it's about the verdict you were going to reach it's about the evidence that you heard here in this courtroom and nothing else, nothing else that you knew or thought about President Trump or any of the other people who testified. but only the evidence that you heard from the witnesses, the recordings and the documents, if you do, if you focus only on the evidence that you heard in this room, this is a very, very, quick and easy not guilty verdict, thank you, that's the conclusion of The Case of Donald Trump to the jury and then Judge Maran says thank you, jurors, we're going to have lunch during recess at this time.

I'll see you at 2 pm, enjoy your lunch. Court officer Everyone rises, everyone rises. The jury comes out and the

judge

says next. the jury is gone the judge says you can sit down which means no one else is going anywhere even though the jury is and then Mr. Stein Glass the prosecutor says we would like a curative instruction for that ridiculous comment you made Mr. Blanch at the end of his summary about sending the defendant to prison a prison sentence is not required is something jurors are explicitly told not to consider and that it was a blatant and totally

inappropriate

effort to generate sympathy for his client .

Judge Maran then tells Trump's defense attorney, let me listen. your comment about the prison, Todd Blanch, excuse the judge, let me hear you on your comment about the prison, Todd Blanch, I mean, your honor, there is already an instruction that you are going to give as part of the charge on that, so no we believe. There has to be a curative instruction Judge Maran I'm going to give a curative instruction and then Judge Maran says this quote I think saying that was scandalous Mr. Blanch, please take a seat for someone who has been a prosecutor as long as you have. and a defense attorney, whenever you have one, knows that making a comment like that is highly

inappropriate

, it's just not allowed, period, it's hard for me to imagine how it was accidental in any way.

I will give a healing instruction. I'll ask. the people from the prosecution will write one and I will give it to you see you at two o'clock prosecutor Mr. Stein glass thank you and then you take the lunch break everyone goes to lunch and then this is what happens after lunch the prosecutors Now The defense has finished, they have stopped their case, that is, they are done. Prosecutors are about to begin their closing argument and this is how it begins. The judge says, let's bring in the jury, please. The sergeant says everyone gets up. The jury enters.

The jury enters. Judge Maron. says that you can sit down the clerk says that the case on trial continues all the jurors are present and properly seated and then the judge immediately says this jurors before we hear the summary of the people there is an instruction that I wanted to give you during the defense summary What you heard Mr. Blanch essentially asking you not to send the defendant to prison that comment was inappropriate and you should ignore it in your deliberations you cannot discuss consider or even speculate on matters related to sentencing or punishment if there is a guilty verdict it will be my responsibility to impose an appropriate sentence a prison sentence is not required for the charges in this case in the event of a guilty verdict and then says people referring to prosecution It's time to begin Mr.

Stein Glass, the prosecutor says thank you, your honor Council and jurors, good afternoon, what did Todd Blanch do so wrong that it showed that at this crucial moment since Judge Maran joined us now as former FBI General Counsel Andrew Weissman was also in court today for today's closing arguments? Andrew, what happened there? This is totally taboo. You don't and everyone knows you don't raise, as Jen said, the issue of punishment. You don't raise the issue of going to jail and I think that's one of the best ways to understand what's going on. Here's the reality of the fact that this is the former president of the United States and what Todd Blanch was doing here and then I'll move on for a moment to what Josh Stein Glass did in his at the end of the recap he. because I think they are rooted in the same way.

I think what's going on here is a way of trying to increase the burden on the state to really tell the jury: Are you really sending this person to jail? The ex-president. and perhaps the future president of the United States um totally inadequate argument, it is absolutely clear that the judge was right in giving the curative instruction. One thing to note is that it was so clear that the defense actually agreed they made no objection to the curative instruction that was given the draft that you just read, they were given the opportunity to object and they didn't, and it's because you know When the bell rang, the jury heard it and, frankly, even he, upon receiving the healing instruction, is reinforced again.

It was so the defense was really trying to raise the bar for the state and in the same way that I think Josh Stein glassed in a way that was objectionable but not in the same category where at the end of his summary he said um about Donald Trump, you know he can't shoot someone like he said on Fifth Avenue and not be held accountable. I think what he was referring to is the concern that the jury will impose even greater responsibility on the state. charge that Beyond a reasonable doubt because he is the former president and this was a saying: you know what it is, just like everyone else, he should be held to the same standard of law enforcement and I think that's why that you saw both

lawyer

s. trying to find a way to leverage that to your advantage or somehow increase the burden or reduce it to what it should be, so I think that's a real reality that's happening in the courtroom, Andrew, can I ask you? about whether they are assuming a level of risk by doing it, as you say, in both cases the objections were sustained in the first case, when the defense did it, the judge explicitly told the jury basically at that same moment The next moment he was talking with them, don't consider that what he just told you was wrong, you shouldn't have heard it, but in both cases the bell rang, the jury did hear it when

lawyer

s do things like that in the courtroom. a risk, I mean, it seems that if you want the jury to hear those things you just say, oh, you shouldn't have said that, for the jury to say, oh, you shouldn't have heard that, it doesn't seem like enough, it's enough of a solution, enough cure, um, so the answer is yes, they are taking a risk.

The best thing I've ever heard a judge do is actually judge Deary, the name may ring a bell because he was the special master in the Judge Canon case is when a lawyer did that the first time, took it to the sidebar and He told him and told him with the only president of the Council saying: do that again and I will cut off your knees in front of you. from the jury, which means that if you believe that there is no cost to you in terms of the effect of ringing that bell, there will be a cost, um and because, unfortunately, you know that lawyers will do things like that, they're not supposed to, but sometimes you know they take their brand of enthusiastic defense too far.

I think it's worth noting that what Josh Stein Glass did while the objection was sustained is in a very different category. I don't think it was likely to be anything like that. I was going to say that I think I suspected there would be an objection and it would be sustained, but it's not in the same category as talking about punishment, which everyone who is a prosecutor and defense attorney knows is absolutely off-limits. Andre's wife has been a big help in having you on that. Thank you very much, my friend.