Judge Merchan has erred on the side of inclusion. There was a subsequent request to add more and he approved it. There is another note from the jury
The jury is asking for instructions on count one and how to deal with evidence and the inference to be drawn from evidence. He will read pages 7-35.
The inference instructions are interesting. It is not the corroboration or perjury material that would have presumably focused on Cohen. However, the inference sections would go to how much that can read into the implications of testimony. Much of Cohen’s testimony did not concretely establish knowledge or intent by Trump but the prosecutors insisted that they could infer from that evidence
Likewise, Pecker’s testimony tied his actions to the election and the question is how much can the jury infer from the accounts of the Trump Tower meeting that Trump knew and approved of this effort
I should have said better than good news. The corroboration and perjury instructions would have suggested that Cohen was the stumbling block. This goes to the question of weight that can be given to these accounts. Notably, they are asking for mostly Pecker’s account but also have a request for a Cohen passage
The jury specifically raised the “rain metaphor” in their request for the readback. That metaphor is meant to suggest that observing some facts can confirm the occurrence of other prior facts like seeing umbrellas to show that it has rained. The defense has obviously resisted the sweeping inferences from the prosecution.
The instructions state that you can draw an inference from any fact that is proven. Hence the rain metaphor. If you go to bed that it was not raining, but in the morning you see wet grounds and people carrying umbrellas. However, the inference must not be speculative but a natural conclusion from a previously established fact
https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1796178503584366675
I'll go back and see if all 34 counts are identical.
*** The jury is asking for instructions on count one***
What is the charge on count one?
Excellent analysis.
Add "more" what?