just ended, and one thing that came out of the o.j. simpson case was that nobody wanted to put cameras in their courtroom again after that. the judge made a ruling, a few weeks before the second trial started, that he was not going to allow the camera in the courtroom. in order for tv stations to cover menendez two, they had to go old school and bring in a sketch artist. but the way it turned out is people were still wanting to hear every detail of this case. mic check, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6 and so every time there was a break in court, i would go outside on the courthouse steps and report live everything that happened in the courtroom. the prosecution is differing this time in that they are focusing so much on the really gruesome ugly details of what two shotguns can do to two people. and the big, big, big change was that david conn took over as the prosecutor. this is a clear-cut case of first-degree murder, and we hope that we will convince a jury of that this time around.
view, i don t think that s going to go over very well with a manhattan jury in the 21st century. he may be playing to his client s wishes for him to be very blustery. he s the wrong type of personality for a case like this and his strategy is very questionable. even some of the themes of his questioning seem like they re kind of going awry for him. donald trump is not expected to testify, north even show up court. you wrote a piece in the daily beast saying the decision was a big mistake for the former president to not appear in court. why? i think so. from a jury s point of view, it s tough being on the jury. they have to be there. it s only human to think, i have to be here, how come he s not here? trump s strategy here is to make it seem like such a trivial
on the witness stand monday to face more questions from trump s attorney. paula reed, cnn, new york. let s talk more about this. with me now is shan wu, a former federal prosecutor and defense attorney. what do you make of this very aggressive cross examination by trump s attorney? how does that kind of questioning go over with juries in this kind of case? i don t think it s going to go over very well, fred. as a former sex crimes prosecutor, i m rather offended by the tactics he is taking here. but as a matter of strategy, it s just not going well. he s doing a cross examination right out of the 1950s where he s insisting she cannot be believed because she didn t scream and fight. that type of reaction has long been discarded by anybody who s paying attention to what kind of trauma is actually inflicted on sexual assault survivors. from a legal strategy point of
testify, not to be there. but if he s invoking his fifth amendment right not to testify in a civil trial, ms. carroll s lawyers can reference that and ask for an inference against him. you can t do that in a criminal trial. you made the parallel of the o.j. simpson case. even with the acquittal there was payment. that was the penalty in that si civil case. is that what could potentially happen here if e. jean carroll gets a ruling in her favor that there would be a financial penalty. absolutely. there s a financial penalty for the damages for the defamation, injury to her reputation and character. then there would also be damages for a tort, the sexual battery of the perhaps injuries to her. it sounds like it s caused long-term damage for her in
e. jean carroll alleges trump raped her in the 90s and defamed her when he denied the claims. this is a civil rather than a criminal case. help us understand the different thresholds for criminal versus civil. yeah. the civil threshold of proof is a lower standard of evidence. it s preponderance of the evidence, versus the highest standard we have which is beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal cases. i think the easiest analogy that comes to mind here if we remember the famous o.j. simpson murder trial where he was acquitted. that was the criminal trial. beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution failed to make that burden. but in the civil trial, he was found responsible under the preponderance standard. here ms. carroll is under the preponderance standard, not the reasonable doubt start, which is helpful. trump has a right not to