The former
president's New York criminal trial
picks up again tomorrow morning.
But today, there was a new filing
from the prosecution,
laying out their intention
to use his past legal run
ins to discredit him
if he chooses to testify.
Jury selection continues tomorrow
with seven members already seated
and the defendant apparently in the dark
about the rules
for keeping perspective
members off the jury,
striking them, as it's called.
He posted to a
social network this morning writing,
I thought strikes
were supposed to be unlimited
when when we were picking our jury,
I was then told we only had ten.
Not nearly enough
when we were purposely
given the second worst
venue in the country.
Now, Keeping Them Honest,
here is the state law
pertaining to the type of felonies
he is charged with.
And I'm quoting now,
Each party must be allowed
the following number
of peremptory challenges.
Ten for the regular jurors
in all other cases,
and two for each alternate juror
to be selected.
And that's something
his legal team is certainly aware of.
Their client?
Apparently not so much.
Regardless, the jury selection process
has been going quickly enough.
We could see opening statements
by Monday.
More now from CNN's
Kara Scannell, who joins us.
So we're going to get to the Trump
complaints about jury selection
in a moment.
But first,
talk a little bit
about the information that prosecutors
want to now introduce.
Yes, the prosecutors
want to be able to ask Trump
if he takes the stand
on cross-examination
about a lot of the legal issues
that he's had,
including the verdict in the civil
fraud case
for the judge found
Trump liable for persistent
and repeated fraud.
They also want to bring up the verdicts
in the E.
Jean, Carroll, cases
where two different juries
found Trump
liable for defamation, one
found Trump liable for sexual abuse,
and among the other,
Legal run ins Trump has had.
They also want to focus on a judge
sanctioning him
for filing a frivolous lawsuit
against Hillary Clinton.
They also want to be able
to ask him about a settlement
that the Trump Foundation
had with the New York Attorney
General's office
in which Trump agreed
to dissolve his foundation.
And lastly,
they want to ask him
about the criminal conviction
of two Trump entities
for tax fraud in 2022.
Trump side has signaled
that they were going to challenges.
The judge said he will hold
a hearing over this issue
before he rules
whether any of this will come in.
He said that could be
as soon as Friday afternoon
if they wrap up jury selection in time.
So he seems like
he thinks that that is possible.
Kara Scannell, stay with us.
Joining us is also bestselling
author and former federal prosecutor
Jeffrey Toobin,
also jury consultant Jill Huntley Taylor.
Jeff, the former president
posted on his social media platform
tonight quoting a Fox host
who said, quote,
They are catching undercover
liberal activists
lying to the judge in order
to get on the Trump jury, end quote.
Is that permissible
given the gag order on Trump?
I don't think so.
What do you make of
the merits of that claim?
Well, I think it's false, but it's
but more importantly, it's clearly,
I think, an attempt to intimidate jurors.
And it is clearly barred by
by the gag order in this case.
I mean, Donald Trump
doesn't seem to realize
that he is now a criminal defendant.
And criminal defendants
have different and lesser rights
than ordinary citizens.
They are not allowed to interfere in
in the trial process,
especially when there is a gag order
that specifically address attempts
to intimidate jurors.
I mean, it is just not permissible.
And I think prosecutors
who have already asked to have him
found in contempt
for other violations
where he's talked about witnesses.
This, in many respects
is much more serious
because judges take the jury
and the integrity of the jury
as almost sacrosanct.
And the idea that he's intimidating
the jury
is something that I think Judge Mershon
is going to be very concerned about.
He's already scheduled a hearing
for the other contempt issue next week,
but this may prompt him to move it up.
What are his options, though?
I mean,
what realistically,
the prosecution has asked for a fine
of $1,000 per violation
of of the gag order
in terms of the witnesses.
But the way contempt often works
is that it accelerates.
Is that,
you know, the first violation is $1,000.
The next violation is $10,000.
The next violation can be $100,000.
But ultimately, contempt can include
jail time.
And, you know,
I think we are a ways off from that.
But if Trump continues
to violate the court's order,
it is well within Judge
Merchan's ability and
and his power to order him
locked up for contempt.
I don't think he's there yet.
But and dollar sanctions
will certainly be the first sanction.
But, you know, if if Trump continues
to violate these rules
and we are very early in this process,
it could happen.
Yeah.
Kara, I mean,
you've you've watched this judge closely.
How do you think he's going to deal
with potential violations?
I would expect the prosecutors
will bring this up
tomorrow morning
before they bring
in the new pool of jurors.
And, you know, the judge was pretty firm
in the former president yesterday
when he was making comments.
It was the judge that noticed
and identified
that Trump
was muttering in the courtroom
and gesturing
in the direction of the juror.
And he said
he wanted to note it for the record.
And he said he would not
tolerate jury intimidation
in this courtroom.
He said, am I making myself clear?
So, you know,
he he ordered Trump's lawyer
to go over and talk to him about it.
So I don't think he's going to
like the the tweet here.
And it's going to definitely be an issue
that they'll be discussing, I'd imagine.
And Anderson,
you know, judges in general
and this judge in particular,
they draw a distinction
between public figures
and people who didn't volunteer
to be public figures.
I mean, the other contempt issues
involve comments about Stormy
Daniels and Michael Cohen,
both of whom are public figures.
And they've been talked about before.
And frankly, I'm not sure
what Trump's comments,
you know, how much of a difference
they made.
The jury is a different story.
These people did not volunteer
to be public figures.
They have no experience
with with the news media.
Everybody knows that Trump supporters,
you know, mobilized behind their leader.
This is a scary thing.
And I think the judge is going
to be very concerned about it.
Jill, if
you look at yesterday's court
transcript, the difference in approaches,
I mean, historic,
the prosecution told prospective jurors,
and I'm quoting,
this case has nothing to do
with your personal politics.
This case is about
whether this man broke the law
while the defense
really focused on their opinion, saying
it's extraordinarily important
to President Trump
that we know
we're going to get a fair
shake and urged
potential jurors to be candid
about their views, saying such candor
would not
offend the court,
the people, or even Trump
by really talking about your opinion.
I'm wonder,
what do you make of those
two two tactics?
Yeah, I mean, they were both focused
on the issue of court challenges, right?
So the prosecution was trying to
insulate the jurors
and remind the jurors
that their job is to make decisions
based on the evidence and the facts
that they hear in that courtroom
and to distinguish that
from what
maybe their opinions were before
they got their or their general opinions
or their politics.
And on the defense side,
they were focused
on developing cause challenges.
They want the jurors to say,
you know
what, actually, I can't be fair
so that they can get a court challenge.
And so they confronted the jurors
with their social media posts.
And despite the jurors
saying that they could be fair
and impartial, they were confronted
and challenged on that
by by seeing their social media posts.
And and they did
they were successful
in getting some of the court challenges
that they wanted.
Judge Merchan did grant
a couple of those cause challenges.
And for the other jurors
that that they didn't like
and they didn't get court challenges,
then they used their peremptory
challenges on those jurors.
Jill Huntley Taylor Thank you.
Kara Scannell, Jeff Toobin as well.