Major stories this morning. Former President Trump expected back in court in new york city. His legal team trying to throw out the first decision in the e. Jean Carroll Defamation trial, which found him liable for Sexual Abuse and defamation. Well dig into his arguments his lawyers are making in this case. In just the last hour the georgia high School Student accused of killing four people appeared before a judge for the first time. Just before his father was in the same courtroom also facing charges in the case, including second Degree Murder. Its 10 00 eastern, 7 00 a. M. Pacific. Thanks for joining us. Im Ana Cabrera in new york city. Lets get right to the Breaking News. Donald trump expected here in manhattan in this courthouse in the heat of the fall campaign rush. He is off the trail this morning to fight the vergt that found him liable of sexual Abuse And Slander involving e. Jean carroll. In that May 2023 decision, a jury ordered the former president to pay carroll 5 Million. Nbc News Correspondent Rehema ellis outside the courthouse. Also Dasha Burns and msnbc legal analyst and former District Attorney Katherine christian and former Defense Attorney jeremy saland. Rehema, bring us up to speed. Reporter good morning. I should tell you we understand the former president , the Gop Nominee for president , arrived at the courthouse about 30 minutes ago. Also at the courthouse is author e. Jean carroll who is going to be here to hear these arguments. This is in reference to his attorneys coming before a panel of three judges in the Appellate Court here in manhattan arguing that this case against him should be overturned or at least as you point out that the 5 Million judgment should be reduced or dismissed completely. Theyre arguing that some of the evidence, including the transcript from the Access Hollywood Tape should not have been admitted to trial and other evidence not allowed should have been allowed. Interestingly enough that Donald Trump did not attend that first trial back in 2023, but he is here today. There are reports that he regretted he didnt attend the first trial and went to the second one. This is really important for him because what happens in this particular case with the Appellate Judge if they decide to throw out this case altogether it could have an impact on the Second Civil Liable Trial against Donald Trump in which he did attend and that jury awarded e. Jean carroll 83 Million in terms of saying that Donald Trump had continued to slander her in reference to this case. Again, its an Appellate Court of three judges that are going to hear these arguments today. We do not, however, expect theyll present a judgment today. Thats something well have to wait to hear about. Thank you for bringing us the latest, stay close. Lets listen to some of the arguments. John sauer is up first. As we pointed out, none of those were remotely admissible under rule 13 and 14. As to the 404b Argument they argue it was evidence of modisoprendi here. Sorry, your honor. Go ahead. You do agree that congress has passed rule 413, 414 to allow evidence that would be excluded from other cases, but to permit its consideration by a jury in certain cases here, is that right . Only if it meets the criteria set forth in this case. Take the leads testimony, the 1979 story about the airplane. Again, it never happened. Assume that the jury were to accept the argument, it has to meet that criteria. 413 has to be a crime under state or federal law. They never identified any statute that this conduct supposedly violated except for a statute enacted 15 years ago. What about federal rule of evidence d5, 5 being an attempt, 2 Being Contact without consent between any part of the Defendants Body and another persons genitals . If the defendant, assuming its true put his hands up her skirt, why doesnt that qualify . Why wouldnt that be an attempt to engage in that conduct . The case on attempt is very strong for us. Decisively it rejects that. I point to the Haywood Case, the Rutgers Case in front of the supreme court. If you look at the facts of Haywood Case if you look at this case, is it erroneous for judge kaplan to say, yeah, this is at a minimum arguable and well let the jury decide. The proper standard when it comes to a legal its erroneous. You compare it to the Haywood Case and rodgers case, even if it was alleged, were not close to fact patterns that this court has rejected. I want to take a step back. My understanding from both of the papers is that our court has not yet ruled on what is a standard of admissibility under rule 414, both the cite to third circuit law, is that correct . Is it your view this is a question of first impression . On the standard of admissibility for rule 413, it depends on the issues we raised. Some are addressed in other circuits, some are not. This is first impression for the Second Circuit. I have Case Law from other circuits. Is there anything about the third circuits understanding that you would have us not that i can think of. There are multiple third Circuit Cases. There are multiple third Circuit Cases citing the brief. The standard of admissibility is i want to make sure the standard that you believe we should be dealing with is a reasonable jury could find by the preponderance of evidence . Thats correct. Thats the one you believe we need to adopt in order to move forward . We have that disputed in this case is the way i would frame it. Again, that standard, however, in this situation were dealing with Enter Pre tv questions. Those for example are pure questions of law. Thats not a situation where a reasonable jury can determine whether something legally constitutes an attempt for example. Take another example, if you look at the were having some audio difficulties. Obviously this happening in real time in federal Court Wear they dont allow cameras. They were providing this Audio Feed for us. Were hearing from John Sauer the Trump Attorney offering his arguments for appealing the decision in the e. Jean Carroll Defamation trial. Remember, there were two. This is specifically for the first trial where a jury awarded e. Jean carroll 5 Million saying trump was libel for defamation and Sexual Abuse. Let me bring in the panel to discuss what we heard and what this could look like in terms of the arguments that were hearing from trumps team that the judges will be considering and also the arguments that were expecting from e. Jean carrolls attorney. Dasha burns is with us. Let me turn to you dasha. We heard the Trump Motorcade appear. Trump is expected to be there this morning. Then hes going to be addressing a Police Organization in North Carolina this evening. Thats an interesting campaign split screen. Were just 60 days out. Exactly. Look, this is a voluntary appearance from former President Trump. He didnt attend the first e. Jean Carroll Case. He did attend the second one. He made it a point to be there. This is about optics. This is about defiance. This is about him trying to dispel the picture that his Opponent Vice President Kamala Harris is trying to paint of the prosecutor versus the felon, versus the Sexual Abuser. Hes trying to show up and own his appearance in court. Youre right, later hes talking to the Fraternal Order Of Police later. Hes using that to try to address policy issues. Thats what his campaign wants him to do. As We Saw Yesterday and seen time and time again, even with the right back drop, whether the border or a Police Station or a Grocery Table full of groceries, he tends to get off track. This split screen, court and campaigning, this is kind of quintessential trump in this election cycle. Dasha, stay close. Katherine, we were listening to the arguments as they get under way. What we know of this argument John Sauer is making, hes arguing two witness testimonies that were part of the trial, an accuser of trump, wasnt directly involved in this case, jessica leads who said she was assaulted by trump 20 years before the e. Jean Carroll Incident took place. Then another accuser who said she too was assaulted by trump in a similar fashion at maralago. She was a journalist and showed up to do an interview and said he attacked her. They testified at the trial. Hes saying they shouldnt have been allowed to testify. John sauer suggesting the Access Hollywood Tape shouldnt have been admissible. How strong is their argument . Its not strong because of the Federal Rules of evidence that are allowed in a case when youre being sued for Sexual Assault. The plaintiff can bring in other Sexual Assault acts that are similar. Hes saying it was too prejudicial because theyre saying trump did this before, therefore he did it again, which is normally improper in criminal cases. This federal rule of evidence allows it if its browse in to show he has a particular characteristic. What is a particular characteristic . Grabbing women by the you know what. Thats the Access Hollywood Tape, thats miss leads, thats miss carroll. Thats why the judge allowed it because of a very similar accusation that she accused him of and these women are saying basically he did the exact same thing to me. Theyre showing that this was his particular characteristic of Donald Trump and thats the Federal Rules of evidence that allowed that. Much more to discuss on this issue. We have the Audio Feedback and now e. Jean carrolls lawyer Roberta Kaplan is before the judges. Lets listen in. She was crazy and made the whole thing up. After nearly two trials, the jury found in miss carrolls favor. We called 11 witnesses. They included miss carroll who testified for nearly three days straight, most of which was crossexamination. She said question, when youre being sexually assaulted and raped because youre not a screamer, you wouldnt scream . Im sorry. I have want to make sure were going back to the evidentiary issues. Weve been asked to consider three questions of first impression. One was one thing you mentioned about whether or not 415d must have been a crime at the time the crime was committed. The jurisdictional questions about whether or not 109 has been incorporated by d1. Opposing counsel cites a judicial recommendation that congress didnt adopt that would have added clarifying language to Chapter One of nine that made it clear it was separate. What do you make of that . I make, your honor, congress rejected that. The violence against womens act, one of the few evidentiary rules passed by congress. This didnt come from a rules congress. This game from Bob Dole and part of the violence against women act. Let me be clear about what judge kaplan held here. Clarification would be helpful. If judge kaplan held trumps conduct was a federal crime because it violates 49 usc 49506 thanks for bearing with us with that Audio Difficulty again. Live television here as we have this live feed from the courtroom. Were listening in to this Appeal Panel and the arguments before the panel here involving the e. Jean Carroll Defamation case and the verdict that ultimately was against trump saying he owed e. Jean carroll 5 Million. Jeremy, as you listen into these arguments it gets into the legal weeds for an average viewer, but how do you see it in terms of laying out what were hearing today . What trumps counsel is trying to do is tie it back to what we saw with harvey weinstein. Theres a propensity here. If you allow it in, all evidence against the accused is prejudicial, but theres a weighing and balancing. The argument is it shouldnt have come in, but if it did come in, there should have been instruction. You cant conflate what happened in criminal court with a federal case. As katherine said and as was pointed out here as you look at the Federal Rules, youre allowed to introduce that evidence that finding claims of Sexual Assault that relate to this case, not a propensity, but you can use mo discuss op ran die. It likely wont hold the Water Trump wants it to hold. You mention harvey weinsteins case. A lot of people are thinking about that. His case was recently overturned, that verdict in that case. Was it a difference of criminal versus civil . Is that an important distinction here . Absolutely. Theres two big distinctions, one is the state court, one is Federal Court. One is criminal and one is civil. Federal rules allow this specifically. Were not in civil court. We have to play in the playground were in and thats Federal Court. Carrolls team argues trump engaged in a pattern of lunging at a woman in a semi public place, touching her without consent and declaring the accuser was too unattractive for him to have assaulted her. Her lawyers argue the verdict should stand. Could there be an outcome here where the Appellate Court says there is some evidence that was too prejudicial, but were not going to throw out the verdict . That could be. If you think about the Access Hollywood Tape where he said when youre a star you can grab the women by you know what. Thats what he was found liable of doing to miss carroll. Theres that evidence of liability. Im using liability. This is civil, not criminal. Criminal its different because a person will lose their liberty. The courts are very different. Civil is a loss of money, which is a big deal, but not the loss of liberty. Theres specific rules and evidence in the Federal Court that allows this evidence. As long as its not too prejudicial and judge kaplan determined it wasnt prejudicial. Jeremy, youre a Defense Attorney. Do you see any strong argument to be made for trump . You have to make this argument. Whether its going to be successful or not strong is a relative term. You have to go with what you have. If you precluded or didnt allow these women to come in about these old stories of allegation, then it could have turned the tide. If i was allowed to as the defendant to crossexamine fully e. Jean carroll this would not have happened. This is reversible error. People should understand that doesnt mean the Appeal Court says you win, case is over. It sends it back down to the Trial Court to start this all over. You have to go with what you have. Thats the best he has right now which is propensity on the heels of weinstein. Theres people that will support trump no matter what. Guys, stay close. Were keeping our eyes inside that courthouse. We have our ears too, that Audio Feed as well. Well bring you more updates on trumps appeal. When were back, the suspected 14yearold Georgia School shooter makes his first appearance in court, plus, his father now arrested and charged with second Degree Murder. Were on the ground as a community in pain seeks justice. Community in pain seeks justice. R area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a Humana Medicare Advantage dualeligible Special Needs plan. All these plans include a healthy Options Allowance, a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and overthecounter items. The healthy Options Allowance is loaded onto a prepaid card each month. And whatever you dont spend, carries over from each month. Other benefits on these plans include free rides to and from your medical appointments. And our large networks of doctors, hospitals and pharmacies. So, call the number on your screen now and ask about a Humana Medicare Advantage dualeligible Special Needs plan. Humana. A more Human Way to healthcare. This morning in georgia the high School Student accused of killing two of his fellow classmates and two teachers appeared in court for the first time. The judge warning the 14yearold Defendant he could face life in prison for his crimes. Also in court this morning, his father. Hes also facing charges including second Degree Murder after officials say he gave his son an ar15 style rifle, even after police interviewed them about online threats about a school shooting. Joining us now is priya sridhar. Tell us whats happening. Reporter 14yearold Colt gray facing four Felony Murder charges. He was very soft spoken in the courtroom. He was shackled. He said yes, sir to all the judges basic questions as to whether or not he understand what charges he faced. The judge actually dismissed him and called him to come back in to clarify one point. That was that despite the fact hes being tried as an adult he will not face the Death Penalty which could have been on the table here in the State Of Georgia. Instead he faces Life Imprisonment with or without parole. Moments later his Father 54yearold Colin gray appeared in the same courtroom in a black and white jumpsuit. He was also shackled. He was rocking back and forth. Hes facing four counts of involuntary manslaughter, two counts of second Degree Murder and eight counts of cruelty to children. Those charges could have a 180year sentence if hes convicted on all of those counts. He appeared to be very nervous, rocking back and forth as the judge spoke. There were also several people inside that courtroom. Were not familiar if they were Family Members of the victims. Yesterday when we got that briefing late last night from the Georgia Bureau of investigations, the father Colin Gray was also going to be charged in this case, it reminded us a lot of the Crumbley Trial that happened earlier this year where the two parents in that trial were sentenced for ten years for their son Ethan Crumbley