Thread by @meghanncuniff

A hung jury already? Everyone’s gathering in court for a jury note, and Avenatti’s federal defender Robert Baum told someone in the courtroom that the note says they can’t reach a verdict.

I imagine Judge Furman will read the jury what’s called an Allen instruction to tell them to keep deliberating as I’ve heard done in other trials, because they’ve only been deliberating about 4 1/2 hours. fija.org/library-and-re…

As expected, Judge Furman read an instruction telling the jury to keep deliberating. Avenatti told a reporter in the courtroom afterward: “I’m certainly feeling a lot better now. Evidently the case isn’t nearly as clear cut as the government wanted to believe.”

Here’s Judge Furman’s denial of Avenatti’s mistrial motion over a jury instruction. But with a possible hung jury on the horizon, Avenatti could get his mistrial, anyway.

For the record, Avenatti/Stormy Daniels’ jury’s note said, “We are unable to come to a consensus on count 1. What are our next steps?” The consensus record after a jury Allen instruction isn’t all that great, but it’s impossible to know what the jury split is.

Still, based on how one of the jurors, a taller guy with a buzzed head in maybe his 40s, nearly stormed out of the courtroom after being told to keep deliberating, I don’t think Furman’s instruction necessarily sparked the wheels of consensus.

New note from the Avenatti jury: They want the entire transcript of Stormy Daniels’ testimony. “Everything she ever said,” Avenatti’s standby counsel Robert Baum said. Attorneys discussing objection redactions etc right now.

In addition to a transcript of Stormy’s testimony, the jury also wanted to know more about good faith defense. Judge Furman read them an instruction saying defendant has no burden to show good faith, the burden is on prosecutors to show fraudulent intent.

Court is getting 12 copies of Stormy’s testimony transcript, and Judge Furman asked the jurors for patience on that but told the lawyers he’s hoping to get those to them before 5 p.m.

It’s always tough to “read the tea leaves” on jury notes, there were some courtroom rumblings that maybe a majority in jury split could be for acquittal. Impossible to tell for sure. Looks like they’ll likely be back deliberating tomorrow though, given the transcript situation.

Avenatti objected to the jury getting a transcript, and there was discussion about U.S. v. Escotto, with Judge Furman concluding he has discretion to do so. casetext.com/case/us-v-esco… Regarding transcript copies: “For the sake of the environment, I would say double sided.”

I just happened upon a huge media scrum for Sarah Palin, who’s here for trial in her libel lawsuit against @nytimes. I heard Avenatti’s standby counsel Robert Baum say she and Avenatti saw each other in the cafeteria today and spoke briefly.

Palin ignored a lot of shouted questions, but I was able to get her attention with this one.
Me: “Do you still root for the North Idaho Cardinals?”
Palin looks at me and approaches.
“How did you know?” she asked.
Me: “I used to live in Idaho.”
(c.c.: @NorthIdaho)

These media scrums are straight up dangerous. I saw a guy fall over and nearly get swallowed by the scrum. My approach is to stay back and remember that the media scrum is really part of the story here, too.

So, no Avenatti verdict today, obviously. I haven’t heard about the transcript copies, but that had to have delayed deliberations a lot. Hard for them to get much done if they know transcripts are coming. And just giving them transcripts means more time deliberating, too.

I’ve seen a lot of judges decline to send transcript copies back to jury room and instead instruct the jury they’re to rely on their memory. Jurors in a federal insider trading trial I covered in the Central District of California were denied transcript of defendant’s testimony.

Another experienced lawyer told me the same thing and said if Judge Furman hadn’t agreed to give them transcripts, there would have been a verdict this afternoon.

https://twitter.com/TheMikeChase/status/1489367547229130763

One federal court clerk said they have a policy of no transcript copies, and it’s included as a standard jury instruction in all trials. They do allow read back by court reporter in court, but they don’t tell jurors that unless they ask. (Insider trading jurors got a read back.)

Prosecutors want Judge Furman to read a supplemental instruction to Avenatti jurors tomorrow regarding good faith. "In sum, the Court should not risk leaving the jury with a misunderstanding of the law on an issue of importance in this case." bit.ly/3AUtcQd

As prosecutors say, Judge Furman told jury when he read good faith supplemental instruction today "that it could request additional clarification from the Court" (which seems highly unusual.) So I'm not sure how he'll feel about offering clarification w/o a request.

Regarding this transcript stuff, I'm told it's basically an East Coast v. West Coast thing. East Coast gives transcripts but West Coast doesn't. There's actually a 9th Circuit model jury instruction about readbacks. bit.ly/3J20e3t

Avenatti is to respond to this jury instruction proposal by 7:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Here’s what prosecutors want Judge Furman to read to the jury. I’m guessing the use of the word ‘victim’ might not fly. Also, this is beyond any instruction Avenatti and prosecutors based their closing arguments on.

@threadreaderapp Unroll, please. Thank you! 🚀