THREAD. BREAKING: Proposed jury instructions filed. Reading now, but expecting "materiality" to be the biggest disagreement...we'll see shortly. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
2/ LOL. Denied. 
3/ I mean they could just open instead that this trial is about Orange Man Bad.
4/ Sussmann really wants them to know Durham is super-duper special.
4/ Those D.C. juries...watch out those with Mr. Sussmann's political leanings!
5/ Not sure what differs here, but I'll see if I can pull the model instructions. @McAdooGordon such an ace she might know of top of her head.
6/ Now to the meat: My gut here is court will delete "purpose of the statute" but will instruction on the rest of the details included, either here or by tweaking another instruction.
7/ On this instruction, government has better argument as Sussmann's proposed instruction would confuse jury.
8/ As I expected, "materiality" is the fight. Sussmann is trying to relitigate the issue court already rejected that "capable of influencing decision to initiate an investigation." He's losing on that but may be setting up the issue for appeal (he'll lose there too.)
9/ Materiality continued. And...
11/ Also CALLED IT re my point 9 above, before seeing the footnote.
12/ Ummmm, no, that's know how that works Sussmann.
13/ Interesting that Sussmann doesn't have many footnotes to describe this propose instruction. Court might give first paragraph as really that just elaboration on intentional, but the rest of it...not likely.
14/Sussmann wants his theory of defense provided to jury, subject to change based on the evidence, but basically lays out what he's going to argue:
15/ So, in sum, the biggest fight is over materality, which Sussmann will lose in large part IMNSHO. Govt' likely won't get the first instruction as much of it is included later, but court might allow some of the detail to be added to later instruction. For most part,
16/16 Sussmann was way overreaching.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
