Getting specific. At the end of the day, when the jurors deliberate, theyll have to go through each of these 34 counts and have to take a vote and say do we all agree beyond a reasonable Doubt Theyve met their burden. The Prosecution Cant get away from these details. That is the case. I think its great theyre putting it right up front. The jurors have to understand that. If they prove the case, they have to find them guilty. Why do you think theyre reading from the indictment . Well, i think, one, its already been language that theyve all agreed upon on how to describe this case. In an Opening Statement you have to be careful not getting into argument. It helps you from going beyond your skis, as the phrase goes. This is language that the judge and the Defense Cant Object to you putting forward. Now, in another way if youre describing it in a way outside of that, you could get into trouble. You may not be accurate
Prosecutions case. Catherine talked about the difference between the Pre Pop Drans of the evidence as a civil standard versus Beyond A Reasonable Doubt as a cal standard. You want to hone in on that, because you dont have this Hero Figure you can make your defendant out to be. Quite frankly, hes not a very sympathetic victim. You say, look, the Prosecution Cant meet its burden here. They have all these holes, bad witnesses. Youve got michael cohen, stormy daniels. Their testimony doesnt matter because you Cant Focus on your client, so youve got to focus on dismantling their case. Charles, how common is it to have two lawyers on a jury like this . Not common at all. So it raised a question for me, because one of the things weve talked about in the days leading up to this is how, once they have the jury, they try to target and refine their opening statement, right . Do the two lawyers view this very differently, catherine