- Ed Sheeran Trial Goes Into Deliberations After Judge Tells Jury: ‘Independent Creation Is a Complete Defense’ Variety
- Opinion | Today’s Opinions: In (grudging) defense of Ed Sheeran The Washington Post
- Jury briefly deliberates in Ed Sheeran copyright infringement case before ending for the day CNN
- Ed Sheeran trial update: What’s the latest? Is there a verdict? Deseret News
- Ed Sheeran copyright trial closings focus on performance of ‘Thinking Out Loud’ that segued to Marvin Gaye hit ‘Let’s Get It On’ New York Daily News
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Tag Archives: deliberations
Annual? Bivalent? For all? Future of COVID shots murky after FDA deliberations
Enlarge / Dr. Peter Marks, director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research within the Food and Drug Administration, testifies during a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on the federal coronavirus response on Capitol Hill in March 2021, in Washington, DC.
The US Food and Drug Administration’s committee of independent vaccine experts gathered Thursday to discuss the future of COVID-19 shots. The meeting seemed primed for explosive debate. Earlier in the week, the FDA released documents that made clear the agency is holding steadfast to its idea that COVID vaccines will fit the mold of annual flu shots—with reformulations decided in the first half of each year, followed by fall rollouts in anticipation of winter waves.
But outside experts, including some on the FDA’s advisory committee, have questioned almost every aspect of that plan—from the uncertain seasonality of COVID-19 so far, to the futility of chasing fast-moving variants (or subvariants, as the case may be). Some have even questioned whether there’s a need to boost the young and healthy so frequently when current vaccines offer protection against severe disease, but only short-lived protection against infection.
One particularly outspoken member of FDA’s committee, Paul Offit, a pediatrician and infectious disease expert at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, has publicly assailed the bivalent booster, writing a commentary piece in the New England Journal of Medicine earlier this month titled: Bivalent Covid-19 Vaccines — A Cautionary Tale. (The FDA’s advisory committee voted 19-2 in support of the bivalent boosters last year, with Offit being one of the two votes against.)
Yet, despite the charged background of yesterday’s meeting, the sparks of disagreement fizzled over a calm discussion. The nine-hour meeting culminated with a unanimous vote by the committee in favor of “harmonizing” future formulations of COVID-19 vaccines so that primary series and boosters are matched formulations. For example, the primary series vaccines would match the updated bivalent boosters, which currently target both the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 that came out of Wuhan, China, as well as omicron subvariants BA.4/5.
Streamlining
The FDA seemed to soften the ground with questions and discussion topics focused on “harmonizing” and simplifying COVID vaccines. After the single vote, the agency directed the committee to discuss “simplifying the immunization schedule,” before getting to the more perilous, but still gentle discussion topic of considering “periodic updates to COVID-19 vaccine composition.”
Overall, the committee members favored streamlining vaccines where possible—making primary series shots match booster doses, and potentially whittling down regimens to one dose for adults and two for children and high-risk adults.
“There’s so much confusion about these different formulations that I think anything we can do to ease up on that confusion and simplify things, it’s going to be a good thing,” said Archana Chatterjee, Dean of Chicago Medical School and a voting committee member, said at the end of yesterday’s meeting. “I concur with my other colleagues that there definitely remains a need for these vaccines and for us to do our best to get them into arms. Having vaccines is not sufficient, we need to have them be used. … This is a step in the right direction in getting us there.”
But, the bigger steps for future vaccines—deciding what formulation should be used next, who should get them, and when—remained elephant-sized questions in the meeting room. And even among the relatively placid comments, it was clear that large disputes were bubbling under the surface.
Before the committee’s vote and discussion, the advisors listened to a series of presentations from vaccine makers, the FDA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which all provided updates on the state of COVID-19 and the performance of the vaccines so far.
Data dive
Although Offit and others have criticized the bivalent boosters for not being better than the previous boosters, the data presented in the meeting argued otherwise. Real-world observational data shows an advantage for people boosted with the bivalent booster compared with the original (monovalent) vaccine—even against the more recent subvariants. Data presented during the meeting shows it has outcompeted the original vaccine in terms of protection against symptomatic infection, visits to the emergency department or urgent care visits, and hospitalization.
In a CDC study published Wednesday, for instance, researchers found that the bivalent booster’s relative vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection with a BA.5-related omicron sublineage (which includes BQ.1 and BQ.1.1) was 52 percent among people from 18 to 49 years old. In other words, people in this age group had 52 percent more protection against infection with BA.5-related strains than people who received the original booster. For ages 50 to 64, the relative effectiveness against BA.5-related infection was 43 percent, and it was 37 percent among those 65 years and older.
Against the more recent XBB/XBB.1.5-related omicron subvariants, relative effectiveness against infection was 49 percent among people 18 to 49, 40 percent among people 50 to 64 years, and 43 percent among those 65 years and older.
There’s also been a slew of serology studies looking at how the bivalent booster’s antibody responses compare with those from the original booster when up against the gamut of currently circulating omicron subvariants. The results are mixed and, in some cases, hard to compare due to differences in intervals between vaccination, the number of people involved, and the types of assays used. But overall, the FDA argued that they suggest that the bivalent booster provides better neutralizing antibody responses against currently and recently circulating omicron subvariants than the original vaccine.
“The important thing is that the results all trend in the same direction,” Jerry Weir, director of the FDA’s Division of Viral Products, said in the meeting Thursday. “In other words, with all of these studies just like those from the manufacturers, there is improved variant-specific neutralization following administration of the bivalent BA.4/5 vaccine compared with the monovalent… I find it somewhat remarkable to see that level of uniformity.”
For instance, one of the most recently published studies, released Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that a bivalent boost led to a roughly threefold increase in neutralizing antibody levels against XBB.1 compared with people boosted with the original booster. That increase was roughly the same (3.6-fold and 2.7-fold) among people without and with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, respectively.
Despite criticism by Offit and others before the meeting, committee members seemed comfortable with the bivalent data, accepting the FDA’s rosy retrospective.
“I’m totally convinced that the bivalent vaccine is beneficial as a primary series and its boosters,” committee member David Kim, an infectious disease expert at the Department of Health and Human Services, said.
Jury in Trump Organization’s criminal tax fraud trial to begin deliberations
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Jurors in the Trump Organization’s tax fraud trial are set to start deliberating on Monday, following four weeks of testimony and arguments about executive pay practices at Donald Trump’s real estate company that prosecutors say amounted to a years-long criminal scheme.
The former U.S. president’s company was charged in 2021 with paying personal expenses for some executives without reporting the income, and compensating them as if they were independent contractors. Its longtime chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg, pleaded guilty and testified for the prosecution.
Trump, who last month announced a third run for the presidency in 2024, was not charged in the case. But prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said in his closing argument on Friday that Trump was aware of the scheme, part of an effort to counter the defense’s argument that Weisselberg, 75, sought only to benefit himself and hid his wrongdoing from the Trump family.
“He is not on trial here, but that does not mean that you should believe the defense’s narrative that Allen Weisselberg…went rogue,” Steinglass told the jury.
Trump, a Republican, has called the charges politically motivated. Alvin Bragg, the current Manhattan district attorney, is a Democrat, as is the DA who brought the charges last year, Cyrus Vance.
The Trump Organization has pleaded not guilty. The company faces up to $1.6 million in fines if convicted.
Its lawyers have argued that an outside accountant from Mazars USA who prepared tax returns for the company, Donald Bender, should have caught Weisselberg’s fraud and blown the whistle.
Bender “turned a blind eye to Allen Weisselberg’s wrongdoing,” defense lawyer Susan Necheles said in her closing argument on Thursday. “President Trump relied on Mazars, he relied on Donald Bender to be the watchdog.
Bender, who has been given immunity from prosecution, was the main witness called by the defense. He testified that he trusted that Weisselberg gave him accurate financial information to include in the company’s tax returns and was under no obligation to investigate further.
Mazars cut ties with the Trump Organization earlier this year.
The case is one of several legal troubles facing the 76-year-old Trump. He also faces Department of Justice probes into his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and his removal of government documents from the White House after leaving office, as well as a state probe in Georgia over a push to reverse his election loss in that state.
(Reporting by Luc Cohen in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Alistair Bell)
Jurors in Parkland shooter trial expected to begin deliberations to determine if Nikolas Cruz will receive the death sentence
CNN
—
A 12-person jury in the sentencing trial of the Parkland school shooter is expected to begin deliberations Wednesday on whether to recommend the death penalty.
Broward Circuit Judge Elizabeth Scherer said the jury will be sequestered during their deliberations.
Should jurors recommend the death sentence, their decision must be unanimous, or Nikolas Cruz will receive life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the jury does recommend death, the final decision rests with Judge Scherer, who could choose to follow the recommendation or sentence Cruz to life.
Cruz has pleaded guilty to 17 counts of murder and 17 counts of attempted murder in connection with the February 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, in which 14 students and three school staff members were killed. The massacre is the deadliest mass shooting at a US high school. In the years since the shooting, survivors and victims’ families became very outspoken on gun control.
Because Cruz pleaded guilty to all counts, the trial phase was skipped and the court went directly to the sentencing phase.
Closing arguments in the sentencing trial took place Tuesday, with the defense and prosecution each allotted two and a half hours to make their closing remarks. Prosecutors argued Cruz’s decision to commit the shooting was premeditated and calculated, while Cruz’s defense attorneys offered evidence of a lifetime of struggles at home and in school.
“What he wanted to do, what his plan was and what he did, was to murder children at school and their caretakers,” lead prosecutor Michael Satz said Tuesday. “The appropriate sentence for Nikolas Cruz is the death penalty,” he concluded.
However, defense attorney Melisa McNeill said Cruz “is a brain damaged, broken, mentally ill person, through no fault of his own.” She pointed to the defense’s claim that Cruz’s mother used drugs and drank alcohol while his mother was pregnant with him, saying he was “poisoned” in her womb.
“And in a civilized humane society, do we kill brain damaged, mentally ill, broken people?” McNeill asked Tuesday. “Do we? I hope not.”
Jury selection for the lengthy trial began in early April, with opening statements for the death penalty trial taking place in July. Throughout the last three months, prosecutors and defense attorneys have presented evidence of aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances, reasons Cruz should or should not be put to death.
As part of the prosecution’s case, family members of the victims were given the opportunity over the summer to take the stand and offer raw, emotional testimony about how Cruz’s actions had forever changed their lives. At one point, even members of Cruz’s defense team were brought to tears.
The defense’s case came to an unexpected halt last month when – having called just 26 of 80 planned witnesses – public defenders assigned to represent Cruz abruptly rested, leading the judge to admonish the team for what she said was unprofessionalism, resulting in a courtroom squabble between her and the defense (the jury was not present).
Defense attorneys would later file a motion to disqualify the judge for her comments, arguing in part they suggested the judge was not impartial and Cruz’s right to a fair trial had been undermined. Prosecutors disagreed, writing “judicial comments, even of a critical or hostile nature, are not grounds for disqualification.”
Scherer ultimately denied the motion.
Bill Cosby civil trial jury must start deliberations over
SANTA MONICA, Calif. — After two days of deliberations in which they reached verdicts on nearly all of the questions put before them, jurors in a civil trial who were deciding on sexual abuse allegations against Bill Cosby will have to start from scratch on Monday.
By the end of the court day Friday, the Los Angeles County jury had come to agreement on whether Cosby had sexually assaulted plaintiff Judy Huth at the Playboy Mansion when she was 16 in 1975, and whether Huth deserved any damages. In all they had answered eight of nine questions on their verdict form, all but one that asked whether Cosby acted in a way that should require punitive damages.
Judge Craig Karlan, who had promised one juror when she agreed to serve that she could leave after Friday for a prior commitment, decided over the objections of Cosby’s attorneys to accept and read the verdict on the questions the jury had answered. But he had to change course when deputies at the Santa Monica Courthouse appeared and required him to clear the courtroom. The courthouse has a required closure time of 4:30 p.m. because of no budget for deputies’ overtime
Karlan refused to require the departing juror, who had been chosen as foreperson, to return on Monday, so jurors will have to begin again with an alternate in her place.
“I won’t go back on my word,” Karlan said.
It was a bizarre ending to a strange day of jury deliberations. It began with a note to the judge about what he called a “personality issue” between two of the jurors that was making their work difficult.
After calling them to the courtroom and getting them to agree that every juror would be heard in discussions, the jurors resumed, but had a steady flurry of questions on issues with their verdict form that the judge and attorneys had to discuss and answer. One question was on how to calculate damages.
After the lunch break, Cosby lawyer Jennifer Bonjean moved for a mistrial because of a photo taken by a member of Cosby’s team that showed a juror standing in close proximity to a Cosby accuser who had been sitting in the audience and watching the trial.
Karlan said the photo didn’t indicate any conversation had happened, and quickly dismissed the mistrial motion, getting assurances from the juror in question, then the entire jury, that no one had discussed the case with them.
The accuser, Los Angeles artist Lily Bernard, who has filed her own lawsuit against Cosby in New Jersey, denied speaking to any jurors.
“I never spoke to any juror, ever,” Bernard told the judge from her seat in the courtroom. “I would never do anything to jeopardize this case. I don’t even look at them.”
Karlan fought to get past the hurdles and have jurors deliberate as long as possible, and kept lawyers, reporters and court staff in the courtroom ready to bolt as soon as a verdict was read, but it was fruitless in the end.
Jurors had begun deliberating on Thursday morning after a two-week trial.
Cosby, 84, who was freed from prison when his Pennsylvania criminal conviction was thrown out nearly a year ago, did not attend. He denied any sexual contact with Huth in a clip from a 2015 video deposition shown to jurors. The denial has been repeated throughout the trial by his spokesman and his attorney.
In contentious closing arguments, Bonjean urged the jurors to look past the public allegations against Cosby and consider only the trial evidence, which she said did not come close to proving Huth’s case.
Huth’s attorney Nathan Goldberg told jurors Cosby had to be held accountable for the harm he had done to his client.
The Associated Press does not normally name people who say they have been sexually abused, unless they come forward publicly, as Huth and Bernard each have.
———
Follow AP Entertainment Writer Andrew Dalton on Twitter: https://twitter.com/andyjamesdalton
Bill Cosby civil trial jury will have to restart deliberations after nearly reaching verdict
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Jurors in the civil trial for sexual misconduct allegations against actor and comedian Bill Cosby must start deliberations over after reaching a verdict on Friday for nearly all the questions asked of them.
After two days of deliberations, the jury had concluded whether Cosby sexually assaulted plaintiff Judy Huth at the Playboy Mansion in 1975 when she was just 16-years-old, and whether she deserved any damages.
Jurors answered eight of nine questions on their verdict form: the final one asking if Cosby’s actions warranted punitive damages.
Judge Craig Karlan had promised one juror that she could leave after Friday for a prior commitment.
AMBER HEARD REVEALS POST-TRIAL PLANS AFTER JOHNNY DEPP DEFAMATION CASE, WHAT SHE’LL TELL HER DAUGHTER
Actor and comedian Bill Cosby walks to the courtroom during the fifth day of deliberations in Bill Cosby’s sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pennsylvania, U.S., June 16, 2017. REUTERS/Lucas Jackson
The judge opted to read the verdict on the questions the jury had answered despite objections from Cosby’s attorneys. However, Karlan had to reverse his decision when deputies at the Santa Monica Courthouse showed up and required him to clear the courtroom. The courthouse has a required 4:30 p.m. closing time due to there being no budget for deputies’ overtime.
Karlan wouldn’t require the juror who had to leave to return on Monday, so deliberations will have to restart with an alternate juror in her place. “I won’t go back on my word,” he said.
Earlier in the day, a note was given to the judge about what he referred to as a “personality issue” between two of the jurors that was making their work difficult.
The judge called the two jurors to the courtroom and had them agree to allow every juror to be heard in discussions. The jurors resumed deliberations but had several questions on issues with their verdict form that the judge and attorneys had to talk about and answer, including how to calculate damages.
‘9-1-1: LONE STAR’ ACTOR TYLER SANDERS DEAD AT 18
PHILADELPHIA, PA – JANUARY 22: Actor/ stand-up comedian Bill Cosby performs during a special performance to honor jazz musician Tony Williams at LaRosa Jazz Club on January 22, 2018 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Gilbert Carrasquillo/Getty Images)
(Gilbert Carrasquillo/Getty Images)
Cosby lawyer Jennifer Bonjean requested a mistrial after lunch because of a photo taken by a member of Cosby’s team showing a juror standing near one of the comedian’s accusers who had been sitting in the audience.
Artist Lily Bernard, who has filed her own lawsuit against Cosby, said she had not talked to any jurors.
“I never spoke to any juror, ever,” Bernard told the judge from her seat in the courtroom. “I would never do anything to jeopardize this case. I don’t even look at them.”
Jurors started deliberations Thursday morning following a two-week trial. Cosby was not in the courtroom.
TOM HANKS GETS ANGRY WITH FAN WHO NEARLY KNOCKS OVER HIS WIFE RITA WILSON
Bill Cosby (C), enters a courtroom for a hearing where his lawyers are expected to renew their battle with prosecutors over whether more than a dozen female accusers can testify at his criminal sexual trial next year, in Norristown, Pennsylvania, December 13, 2016. REUTERS/DavidMaialetti/Pool
The 84-year-old was freed from prison last year after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned his 2018 criminal conviction. In a snippet from a 2015 video deposition shown to jurors, Cosby denied having any sexual contact with Huth. His spokesman and attorney have each reiterated his denial throughout the trial.
Bonjean asked the jury in closing arguments to tune out public allegations against Cosby and only consider the evidence presented during the trial. She said the evidence does not prove Huth’s case.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Huth attorney Nathan Goldberg told jurors Cosby had to pay for the damage he had done to his client.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial updates: breaking news today, updates, deliberations, verdict…
Depp v Heard trial: a quick recap
Depp, 58, sued Heard in Virginia for $50 million and argued that she defamed him when she called herself “a public figure representing domestic abuse.”
Heard, 36, has countersued for $100 million, saying Depp smeared her when his lawyer called her accusations a “hoax.”
Heard wrapped up her testimony on Thursday saying she has been “harassed, humiliated, threatened” on social media since accusing the “Pirates of the Caribbean” star of physical and sexual abuse.
“People want to kill me and they tell me so every day,” Heard said. “People want to put my baby in the microwave.” Heard adopted a baby girl in July 2021. She said the ongoing harassment was part of Depp’s crusade to publicly humiliate her.
Depp admitted to writing in a 2016 text that Heard was “begging for total global humiliation” and “she’s gonna get it.” He said it was written in anger when he learned she was alleging that he physically abused her.
“He wanted to ruin my career,” Heard told the jury. “The threats he made to humiliate me, globally, are being lived out in real time, in front of you … and the whole world.” Depp has denied hitting Heard or any woman and said she was the one who turned violent in their relationship. The pair met in 2011 while filming “The Rum Diary” and wed in February 2015. Their divorce was finalized about two years later.
“No human being is perfect,” Depp said on Wednesday. “But I have never in my life committed sexual battery, physical abuse.”
(Reuters)
Jury starts deliberations in lawsuit between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard after 6 weeks of dramatic testimony
Jurors started their deliberations Friday in the civil libel trial between actors Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard, following six weeks of courtroom drama that peeled back the curtain on the stars’ troubled marriage.
Depp is suing Heard for $50 million in Virginia’s Fairfax County Circuit Court over a December 2018 op-ed she wrote in The Washington Post describing herself as “a public figure representing domestic abuse.”
Judge Penney Azcarate gave the jury its instructions Friday morning, ahead of the start of closing arguments from Depp and Heard’s attorneys. When the jury deliberates, it will have to focus not only on whether there was abuse but also whether Heard’s op-ed piece can be considered legally defamatory.
The article itself focuses mostly on policy questions of domestic violence, but Depp’s lawyer pointed to two passages in the article, as well as an online headline that they say defamed Depp, even though the article never mentioned his name.
“She didn’t mention his name. She didn’t have to,” said Depp lawyer Benjamin Chew. “Everyone knew exactly who and what Ms. Heard was talking about.”
POOL / REUTERS
In the first passage, Heard writes that “two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture’s wrath.” Depp’s lawyers call it a clear reference to Depp, given that Heard publicly accused Depp of domestic violence in 2016 – two years before she wrote the article.
In a second passage she states “I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.”
The online headline reads “Amber Heard: I spoke up against sexual violence – and faced our culture’s wrath.”
Heard “ruined his life by falsely telling the world she was a survivor of domestic abuse at the hands of Mr. Depp,” lawyer Camille Vasquez told the jury in closing arguments.
Heard’s lawyers argue Heard can’t be held liable for the headline because she didn’t write it, and that the two passages in the article are not about the abuse allegations themselves but how Heard’s life changed after she made them.
Heard filed a $100 million counterclaim against Depp after his lawyer called her allegations a hoax. Though the counterclaim has received less attention at the trial, Heard lawyer Elaine Bredehoft said it provides an avenue for the jury to compensate Heard for the abuse Depp has inflicted on her by orchestrating a smear campaign against her.
“We’re asking you to finally hold this man responsible,” she told the jury. “He has never accepted responsibility for anything in his life.”
Jim Watson / AP
Depp says he never struck Heard and that she concocted the abuse allegations to gain an advantage in divorce proceedings. He has said he was often physically attacked by Heard.
Jurors have seen multiple photos of Heard with marks and bruises on her face, but some photos show only mild redness, and others appear to show more severe bruising.
Vasquez accused Heard of doctoring the photos and said evidence that Heard has embellished some of her injuries is proof that all her claims of abuse are unfounded.
“You either believe all of it, or none of it,” she said. “Either she is a victim of ugly, horrible abuse, or she is a woman who is willing to say absolutely anything.”
In Heard’s closing, attorney J. Benjamin Rottenborn said the nitpicking over Heard’s evidence of abuse ignores the fact there’s overwhelming evidence on her behalf and sends a dangerous message to domestic-violence victims.
“If you didn’t take pictures, it didn’t happen,” Rottenborn said. “If you did take pictures, they’re fake. If you didn’t tell your friends, they’re lying. If you did tell your friends, they’re part of the hoax.”
And he rejected Vasquez’s suggestion that if the jury thinks Heard might be embellishing on a single act of abuse that they have to disregard everything she says. He said Depp’s libel claim must fail if Heard suffered even a single incident of abuse.
“They’re trying to trick you into thinking Amber has to be perfect to win,” Rottenborn said.
Rottenborn told jurors that even if they tend to believe Depp’s claim that he never abused Heard, he still can’t win his case because Heard has a First Amendment right to weigh in on matters of public debate.
Depp is hoping the six-week trial will help restore his reputation, though it has turned into a spectacle of a vicious marriage, with broadcast cameras in the courtroom capturing every twist to an increasingly rapt audience as fans weighed in on social media and lined up overnight for coveted courtroom seats.
Johnny Depp v Amber Heard trial updates: breaking news today, deliberations, verdict…
Could either Depp or Heard get a prison sentence?
Regardless of the outcome, there is no chance that either Johnny Depp or Amber Heard receive a prison sentence, or even get a criminal charge, as a result of the court’s decision. That is because the ongoing case is a civil trial, not a criminal case, and neither party is being tried on any criminal charges.
A civil court case sees one entity (the plaintiff) accuse another (the defendant) of some wrongdoing or harmful act, without bringing a criminal charge against them. When someone is sued for their actions, a civil case is brought.
Crucially, the burden of proof is significantly different for a civil case. Rather than having to prove wrongdoing beyond any reasonable doubt, the plaintiff simply has to show that the balance of probability in the case sides with them.
A successful plaintiff will typically receive some form of compensation from the defendant.
Deliberations underway in trial linked to Trump-Russia probe
WASHINGTON (AP) — A lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign hid his partisan interests from the FBI as he pushed “pure opposition research” related to Donald Trump and Russia in the weeks before the election, a prosecutor asserted Friday during closing arguments of the attorney’s trial.
But Michael Sussmann’s legal team denied prosecutors’ claims that he lied. And even if jurors believed Sussmann did lie, the defense said the alleged false statement did not matter because he was presenting national security information that the FBI would have looked into no matter the source. At the time of Sussmann’s meeting with the FBI in September 2016, the bureau was already investigating whether Russia and the Trump campaign were colluding to sway the election won by Trump that November.
“It was a very contentious time. The Russians had hacked the DNC. They were leaking emails. And there was an ongoing FBI investigation irrespective of this,” Sussmann lawyer Sean Berkowitz told jurors, referring to the Democratic National Committee. “And that was viewed as incredibly serious.”
The case is the first courtroom test of special counsel John Durham’s work since his appointment three years ago to search for government misconduct during the investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Jurors began deliberating Friday afternoon.
A guilty verdict would be cheered by Trump and his supporters, who have looked to the Durham investigation to undercut the original Trump-Russia probe that they have long seen as politically motivated. But the case against Sussmann is narrow in nature, involves a peripheral aspect of that probe and alleges misconduct by a tipster to the government rather than by anyone at the FBI or any other federal agency.
Nonetheless, the two weeks of testimony in federal court in Washington have exposed the extent to which Democratic interests, opposition research, the media and law enforcement all came to be entangled in the run-up to the presidential election.
Prosecutors have portrayed Sussmann as determined to gin up investigations into Trump that could then be disclosed to the media and yield stories negative to his campaign.
“It wasn’t about national security,” said Jonathan Algor, a Durham team prosecutor. “It was about promoting opposition research against the opposition candidate, Donald Trump.”
Sussmann is charged with a single count of making a false statement. That charge carries a maximum five-year prison sentence, though if convicted, Sussmann is likely to get far less — if any — prison time. He did not take the stand during the trial.
The case turns on a Sept. 19, 2016, meeting in which Sussmann presented the FBI’s top lawyer, James Baker, with computer data that Sussmann said suggested a secret communications backchannel between a Russia-based bank and the Trump Organization, the candidate’s company.
Such a backchannel, if it existed, would have been explosive information at a time when the FBI was examining links between Trump and Russia. But after assessing the data, the FBI quickly determined that there was no suspicious contact at all.
Prosecutors say Sussmann lied to Baker by saying he was not participating in the meeting on behalf of a particular client. They say he was actually there on behalf of the Clinton campaign and another client, a technology executive whom the Durham team says tasked researchers with looking for internet traffic involving Trump associates and Russians.
Sussmann lied about his clients, prosecutors allege, to give the data extra credibility because he figured the information would not be investigated if the FBI thought it was mere opposition research being pushed by the Clinton campaign.
“The defendant knew he had to hide his clients if there was any chance of getting his allegations to the FBI — and that, ladies and gentlemen, is why the defendant lied,” Algor said.
To convict, prosecutors need to show not only that Sussmann lied but that the lie was material — namely, that it mattered or at least could have mattered to the FBI’s work.
Algor said the fact Sussmann repeatedly billed the Clinton campaign for his work on the Alfa Bank matter is proof he was acting on the campaign’s behalf when he met with the FBI. But Berkowitz noted that Sussmann billed his taxi ride to FBI headquarters for the meeting itself to his law firm, rather than to the campaign.
Berkowitz also tried to cast doubt on what exactly was said in the meeting. Prosecutors showed jurors a text message Sussmann sent Baker the night before the meeting in which he requested a sit-down on a sensitive matter and said he would be coming by himself and not on behalf of a client.
But Berkowitz reminded jurors that the only false statement that was charged took place during the following day’s meeting, and that no one can be sure exactly what was said because Baker and Sussmann were the only participants and neither took notes.
Berkowitz also suggested it was technically accurate if Sussmann said he was not acting on behalf of a client because Sussmann never asked the FBI do anything with the information he was providing.
“When you go somewhere on behalf of a client, you’re advocating for the client, you’re asking for something,” Berkowitz said. “Mr. Sussmann didn’t ask Jim Baker for anything.”
The two sides also quibbled over Baker’s testimony, with Berkowitz citing dozens of instances in which Baker said on the stand that he did not recall or could not remember something. Prosecutors, meanwhile, seized on the fact that Baker said he was “100% confident” that Sussmann had told him that he was not acting on behalf of a client and that he probably wouldn’t have taken the meeting if he had been told otherwise.
“Ladies and gentlemen, would James Baker come on the stand under oath, a former high-ranking FBI official, and subject himself to the penalty of perjury if it weren’t true,” another prosecutor, Andrew DeFilippis, told jurors on Friday. “No, he wouldn’t do that. None of us would do that, would take that risk.”
Durham has so far charged three people. The case against Sussmann is the only one to have reached trial.
___
Follow Eric Tucker on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/etuckerAP