Thread by @TylerMcBrien

Good morning from 100 Centre Street for Day 4 of Trump’s NY criminal trial.

Yesterday we hit a milestone: a full jury + one alternate.

Today, we hope to hit another: empaneling the five more alternates needed before we start oral arguments.

Follow for updates 🧵⚖️

Justice Juan Merchan has been telling empaneled jurors to expect to return Monday at 9:30 a.m. for oral arguments.

But yesterday we started jury selection by taking two steps back, after two jurors were excused for reasons related to public disclosure of their identities.

Still, with both sides out of their 10 peremptory challenges, getting to the full 18 (12 jurors + 6 alternates) by the end of the day seems entirely possible.

Merchan runs a tight ship.

For more on yesterday’s action, including Merchan’s order prohibiting the press from reporting on jurors’ current and past employers (and @lawfare’s stance), listen to yesterday’s live Trump Trial’s & Tribulations with me, @rparloff, and Ben Wittes.
lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfar…

Correcting an earlier tweet:

Each side gets an additional two peremptory strikes per alternate.

They don’t roll over. So if you only use one for the first alternate, you still only can use two for the next.

“For cause” challenges are still unlimited.
casetext.com/statute/consol…

Going through the multiple layers of security and magnetometers, I hear a reporter behind me say, “It’s a new adventure every day.” TGIF.

In addition to picking the remaining 5 alternates, we should also expect a Sandoval hearing, during which Merchan will determine what prosecutors can ask Trump, should he choose to testify.

It's drafty again in the press overflow room, and reporters are torn btwn sitting on their coats for extra cushion on the hard court pews, or wearing them for insulation against the harsh climate.

Yesterday, everyone—counsel, jurors, Merchan, even Trump—complained about the cold

8:53 a.m. Trump's motorcade arrives at 100 Centre Street.

Per the pool, Trump entered the courtroom around 9, called the trial rigged and said Bragg, who attended Harvard for college and law school, was “not smart enough to represent himself… like Letitia James.” He said he should be campaigning in PA, GA and NC instead of in court...

...and demanded that the judge release him from the gag order. Trump then called unspecified people who are talking about him “real scum.”

Correction: Trump left back through the doors, and did NOT enter the courtroom yet. He did not respond to shouted questions from the reporters.

Every day, a few members of the public get in to watch.

I've seen two members of the public so far this morning.

When asked why he's here, one man said "I'm here making sure God is with us."

Another woman is wearing in a bedazzled American flag hat.

9:20 a.m., prosecutors enter.

9:27 a.m. Trump and his defense counsel enter, take a seat. Trump is back in a red tie today, with little white stripes.

He waved at reporters but did not respond to shouted questions on his way in.

Trump aide Steven Cheung is sitting in the back row of the courtroom today, joined by lawyer Cliff Robert.

9:31 a.m. all rise. "The People of the State of New York v. Donald J. Trump."

Merchan is at the bench, both sides introduce themselves.

"I'm told that all 22 jurors are here and ready to go," Merchan says, but Susan Hoffinger for the prosecution makes a request for jurors to state their number before answering questions.

"We're also still working on the temperature in the courtroom," Merchan says.

More detail on Cliff Robert, who is seated in the back of the courtroom with Trump aide Steven Cheung: Robert was one of Trump's main attorneys in the New York Attorney General's civil fraud trial.

Merchan welcomes jurors back, thanks them for being on time, and gives instructions on the questionnaire. The first potential alternate juror B428, begins: "With the disqualifying thing, I have really bad anxiety...so I might not be able to be completely fair and punctual."

She is excused without objection.

The next potential alternate juror, B441 begins.

The first potential juror of the day, who mentioned that her bad anxiety might prevent her from being fair and punctual, had said: "The more days that go on and more and more people in my life know that I'm here without me even telling them, they just put pieces together."

Recall the trial will not convene on Wednesdays because on that day Merchan presides over Manhattan's weekly Mental Health Court, in which offenders with a mental illness agree to closely monitored treatment in hopes of dropped or charges apnews.com/article/trump-…

When asked whether she listens to podcasts, the second potential juror says emphatically "No—never," getting a laugh from the press. Later, she says, "No, I don't take any medications, not even Tylenol."

Maybe we're all in chronic pain for listening to too many podcasts?

Ah, so that's why she never needs Tylenol: she doesn't have any social media. "No instagram, no snapchat, no whatever it is."

Merchan asks her politely just to answer the questions yes or no.

Next to answer the questionnaire is B706, a former amateur boxer who quit "because black eyes are frowned upon in office places" she says.

Trump appears to be chewing on something as he sits at the defense table, per the pool.

The juror "might have read The Art of the Deal when I was younger," but she's not so sure.

If she did, I guess it didn't really stick with her.

The next juror says that after some introspection, she doesn't think she can be impartial, though she wants to be.

She's excused without objection.

B616 is an audio specialist, and offers jokingly to fix the microphone if the tech problems persist.

"Thank you, we'll take you up on that later," Merchan says, smiling.

It's Friday, and the mood feels a bit lighter today.

As more jurors answer questions, it's notable just how many Manhattanites have interacted with the criminal justice system in some way—as victims of crime, knowing people who committed crimes, working in the legal profession, working in the courts or prisons, etc.

Trump is hunched over something on the table in front of him, likely the questionnaire, but it's difficult to see what it is because the view is blocked by a small computer monitor.

He appears to be writing something.

The pool reporters in the courtroom with Trump say that it is, in fact, still quite chilly in there.

Hopefully there's a potential juror still left who's an HVAC specialist too.

"Everyday, I clean my local dog park, morning and evening," one juror says. He says it's meditative.

I'll go on the record and say it right now: New York City has some of the greatest people in the world.

It's also been heartening to learn about some potential jurors' discerning media consumption.

One juror had an "interesting routine," he says, "I listen to NPR and Fox News in a single walk" to get both sides, the juror says. "They're remarkably different."

To Q18 about whether he or a relative had an experience/interaction with the criminal justice system: "It was a good experience, but a tough one. The system was helpful," the potential juror says, after pausing and tearing up.

Trump is still hunched over reading through papers, and has been for some time now. Emil Bove to his left and Todd Blanche to his right take notes, as Blanche occasionally leans his head on his hand.

"Citizens United is the law of the land," one potential juror says, but wishes that all political donations be made public.

"The Constitution is the ruling document," he says to another question.

The next juror jumps immediately to Q26, says that she after thinking about it, she can't be fair or impartial. She is excused without objections.

Per the pool, Trump had looked up at the 'Citizen's United' juror when he said he was a “born and bred New Yorker,” piquing his attention piqued.

The prospective juror appeared to speak directly to Trump when he said: “I never read any of your books.”

The next prospective juror jumps to Q35, no issue about being fair or impartial he says, but he is loosely and tangentially tied to Michael Cohen's podcast Mea Culpa. Merchan allows him to proceed.

The juror also says he worked on get out the vote efforts for the Democratic Party and attended the Women's March, as some members of the press laugh.

Though Trump is physically here, his mind may be elsewhere. This morning, he fired off a series of posts related to the pending outcome of his presidential immunity case at the Supreme Court.

"I'm good with the time, as long as we get to eat," one potential juror says, when asked whether the schedule and timing of the trial works for her. Grunts of approval from the press corps.

The next potential juror jumps to Q29A, and discloses that a family member is a lifelong friend of former NJ Gov. Chris Christie. When asked if that would be a problem: "I don't believe so." Merchan: "Is that a figure of speech or—" Her: "Sorry, a figure of speech. I'm nervous."

Later, on the podcast question, she says, “I used to listen to The Daily, but it’s too depressing, so I stopped.”

Note to self: More "happy" content on the @lawfare podcast.

The next juror says he knows a court officer. He clarifies, "A court officer...in this room."

Another day in small town Manhattan.

Later he says, "I try to find a wife in my spare time, but it's not working."

More context from the pool on the papers Trump is hunched over studying so intently: "Trump is flipping through papers right now that contain either charts, photos or graphics, definitely not text."

The next juror starts by jumping to Q14-19, saying she's disqualified because she served time. Tearing up she says, "I wrote down all my crimes, it was over 10 years ago, and you guys keep calling me back for jury, and I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be here."

Merchan seems genuinely concerned as he asks if she'd like to approach the bench to discuss this more privately. She was summoned for jury duty as recently as January, and had to go through this then. It sounds like a very painful experience that she now keeps having to recount.

It's not disqualifying. She apologizes for crying and proceeds with the rest of the questionnaire.

At 11:24 a.m., we take a "very short" 10-minute recess.

After the jurors left, Merchan said just before recess, referencing the emotional exchange: “We all just heard from a very brave woman. So I just want to encourage the press to please be kind. Please be kind to this person.”

We're back, and Susan Hoffinger begins voir dire for the prosecution. "Good morning," she says. "It's still the morning."

She's going through a similar introduction we've heard, now familiar questions and arguments.

She starts with B441, who promises to hold the prosecution to their burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nothing more, nothing less.

We're now talking about what Steinglass at one point called the "opinionated masses," who, Hoffinger says, "don't have access to the facts—the truth—that you'll hear if you're picked."

Recall that Steinglass also said that "everyone and their mother" has an opinion on this case.

During recess, court officers told press that phone calls were only permitted in the restrooms.

One enterprising reporter set up shop in one of the three stalls in the men's room to conduct a live radio interview.

I didn't listen in because I respect people's privacy.

Another potential juror tears up as she says to Hoffinger: "I feel so nervous and anxious right now...I don't want to waste the court's time. This is so much more stressful than I thought it was going to be."

Merchan asks if she'd like to approach the bench.

The juror is excused, and we continue voir dire.

"Documents don't lie," Hoffinger says, asking the potential jurors if they're comfortable reviewing immense amounts of documents.

Working through the evidence in this case might be a "slog," she adds.

Hoffinger breaks down accessorial liability, "people who act together can be held criminally liable for the acts of the other people," and asks whether people would be comfortable holding Trump liable in such a case. It gives jurors no pause.

Hoffinger is explaining the importance of discerning Trump's intent, though, sadly, with far fewer colorful analogies than when Steinglass did.

No hitmen, no "Jack and Jill" bank robbers, no baseball games.

As she wraps up voir dire, Hoffinger asks to approach. The attorneys are all huddle around the bench in conversation with Merchan, who bends over to hear them.

Susan Necheles is up now for the defense, introducing her co-counsel and client.

She starts with an appreciation of the "candor" everyone has shown up to this point.

She says she's trying to figure out if the jurors have any biases about a figure "as public and outspoken as President Trump is."

Jury selection has highlighted Trump's ubiquity in America. Striking a juror for simply knowing of or having an opinion of Trump is not an option.

In the middle of Necheles' voir dire, a potential juror asks to approach the bench, because this line of questioning is causing her "anxiety and self-doubt." Merchan allows it, and they're in sidebar now.

The juror is excused. We continue.

Necheles is asking a juror about her attendance at the Women's March—which coincided with the events discussed in this case.

"There was a lot of anger at that march toward President Trump," says Necheles.

"I believe it was more about women's solidarity," she says.

"This is a little embarrassing but I'm not exactly sure what Trump's policies are," but mentions that people dislike his rhetoric, and says that some people cite Trump when making homophobic or racist comments.

Trump watches her as she speaks.

When asked what his opinion of Trump is, one potential juror says it doesn't matter, but when Necheles presses him, says, "My opinion is that Donald Trump is a man, just like I am, and should be treated fairly in a court of law."

Necheles mentions that there will be allegations that Trump was unfaithful in his marriage, asking if that would cause anyone difficulty in being fair, while also noting that infidelity is not a crime.

Necheles asks a lifelong New Yorker if he has opinions on Trump as a New Yorker: "We don't really get starstruck or care about anything like that. He's just a normal person like me—that's the way I see Trump."

One potential juror complicates the "opinion of Trump" question, separating Trump the person, the politician, the businessman, the family man.

Notes that he likes lower taxes, but wants women's rights over their bodies and religion out of politics.

One potential juror expresses what I can only describe as Trump fatigue: "There's been so much thrown around for the last few years that I simply disregard it as much as I can," when asked about his opinion of Trump.

Necheles jokes about how nice B456's number is, and he agrees especially because B sounds like 3. Necheles asks if he might play the lotto with it.

Merchan asks politely if her side is just about done.

Another first: one juror just called Jan. 6 "the insurrection."

Necheles asks if he has an opinion of Trump, he says, "I would say it's fairly negative." He doesn't like Trump's "negative rhetoric and bias against people he speaks about."

The potential jurors step outside as the attorneys review their notes for strikes and challenges.

We haven't lost any empaneled jurors yet today, so if I didn't just jinx it, we still need 5 more alternates.

As a reminder, each side gets 2 peremptory challenges per seat, but they don't roll over.

So for example, if we get to the 6th and last alternate without having used any peremptory challenges at all, each side would still only get 2 challenges, rather than a cumulative 10.

But first, challenges for cause, starting with alternate seat 2.

No challenges for cause nor peremptory challenges for seat 2.

Seat 2 becomes Alternate 2.

Defense moves to Seat 3, whom Necheles challenges bc the potential juror referenced Trump's "homophobic and racist comments," but Hoffinger clarifies that she said that Trump enables his followers to do that, not Trump saying those comments himself.

She comes in to clarify.

The "difficult thing" about Trump she says, though she hasn't paid attention to his rallies, is that his followers are devout to him, and were emboldened by his rhetoric to discriminate against others.

She assures everyone that she can separate the two and be fair.

She's the amateur boxer and she references conversations within the boxing community in 2016, "these inner demons that people have been battling with re: homophobia," and "people felt emboldened by Trump to discriminate against me as a woman."

The potential juror leaves, and Necheles maintains her challenge for cause. She notes that the juror said Trump enabled discrimination against her personally, and says that this is the way the juror "is viewing the world." Hoffinger notes a lack of visceral or strong reaction.

Merchan thinks she is credible and not disingenuous, but "to ensure finality of this case, it's best to err on the side of caution" and GRANTS challenge for cause.

"Counsel this is just the third seat, you really should be ready for this one," Merchan says impatiently as defense counsel discusses.

No challenges.

Seat 5 becomes Alternate 3.

Seat 8 becomes Alternate 4.

We rapidly move through seats and peremptory challenges until Necheles rises to challenge Seat 11 for cause about that potential juror's social media posts.

Merchan is reviewing the posts in question. It's an alleged anti-Trump demonstration of some kind.

"Enormous crowd, great signs, I love New York," Merchan reads, presumably from the caption.

"I don't see any relevance until the very last one, I don't see any connection to your client," Merchan says. Necheles clarifies that when she said it's pictures the juror is in, what she meant to say is that the juror had tagged himself in them.

The potential juror, B647, is brought in for clarifying questions.

"I don't remember, but I guess they're mine," the potential juror says, reviewing the posts. He confirms the rally was right by his house and he went downstairs to take pictures.

Merchan asks about the "great signs" caption and asks, "Do you have a particular interest in signs?" and the press laughs. He says he thought some of them were interesting, sure.

"Was it a march against how Donald Trump treats women?" Necheles asks, but the potential juror doesn't remember if it was particularly about Trump.

Necheles maintains her challenge for cause. Hoffinger gets up to push back.

Merchan found him to be very credible, isn't convinced that these sentiments are anti-Trump necessarily, but expresses a concern about the caption. Merchan says we've come too far in this trial to jeopardize it now, and grants the challenge.

Another potential juror is here now to review social media posts and confirm if it's his account.

"These are not my posts," he says, confused.

One of the posts says that Trump "actually is the devil," and the potential juror clarifies that maybe yes, he did post that.

The challenge is granted, and the juror is excused.

We have alternate 5.

One. more. to. go.

Seat 16.

Seat 20 becomes alternate 6.

WE HAVE A FULL JURY.

Merchan thanks "the entire crew" for working through lunchtime to get the full panel.

"We'll take a long lunch today," he promises. Justice Merchan, sir, I'm gonna hold you to that.

They're coming back to get sworn in. They are:

Alt 2 B441
Alt 3 B616
Alt 4 B624
Alt 5 B557
Alt 6 B620

They're sworn in and Merchan says, "We expect the trial itself to begin Monday," asking them to return promptly then.

Folks, we have a jury in the first criminal trial of a former U.S. president.

We're adjourned until 3:15, when we'll return for a Sandoval hearing.

I just walked out and heard someone self-immolated. It smells faintly of smoke, and everyone seems very shaken up. I hear an officer say, “I don’t know how someone could do that to themself.”

Most of the press is back in the overflow room, waiting for the Sandoval hearing to begin, despite the tragedy that unfolded earlier this afternoon just outside the courtroom.

As Merchan said earlier, "We've come too far in this trial to jeopardize it now."

Scratch that: We're being told that the reserve press are going into the actual courtroom, we've been upgraded from overflow.

The press is here in the main courtroom in full force now that the pews are no longer needed for potential jurors.

3:17 p.m. Trump and defense counsel are back, he grins at the full press now seated in the courtroom.

Emil Bove is now seated to Trump's right, having swapped places with Blanche, who whispers quietly to Trump. Necheles is also seated back in her original spot.

3:19 p.m. Merchan is back, and wishes us a good afternoon.

Hoffinger immediately stands to request court exhibits be sealed—contact lists from Cohen's cell phones, AT&T, and Verizon phone records—they comprise many 1000s of pages and extensive PII, social security #'s, addresses, etc.

Bove clarifies that defense does not object to redacting certain PII in the exhibits, "What's really going on here is the people have marked as exhibits, extremely large documentss, without regard to whether specific contents are relevant or admissible"

Hoffinger explains that this is because the redactions would be "extremely burdensome."

As an example, the phone contacts in Michael Cohen's phone contains 39,000 contacts.

Another example: There are 17 reports of AT&T and Verizon phone records, and 4 of them are over 9,000 pages long. Hoffinger calls redacting them nearly impossible.

Bove says that whole argument was couched in what's relevant, but the people are only permitted to offer what's relevant at trial. Notes how long the DA has been been investigating.

Merchan says they have already identified what's relevant.

Merchan thinks it's an absurd condition to absurd condition to impose on the people, as Bove says something, Merchan says, "Don't interrupt me—"

Bove: "I"m not interrupting you."

Merchan: "Yes you are, sit down...I'm signing the order."
Those exhibits will be sealed.

Now the Sandoval hearing begins.

The People are seeking to use findings in the Engoron case to cross-examine Trump, but Bove says that the appellate division has stayed relief in significant part.

But he also raises procedural issues.

Per the pool, as he entered the courtroom at 3:17, Trump did not respond to questions about the man who set himself on fire.

"What you're describing is no different than what any other defendant feels he needs to do when he takes the stand," Merchan says, unconvinced by Bove's reasoning.

At issue here is the risk that the jury will mistake discussion of the civil trial which Engoron presided over, should it come up in a potential Trump cross-examiniation, as evidence in this criminal case—a risk that Matthew Colangelo for the prosecution argues is quite low.

Bove tries to make an analogy that I couldn't quite catch but related to Michael Cohen, but Merchan replies, "We're not going to mix apples and oranges right now, we're going to stick with this issue."

During the civil trial, after Trump violated Engoron's gag order, the judge put Trump on the stand and the court found that he lied, says Colangelo. Its "hard to think of something more probative than" lying under oath "in a courthouse 200 yds from here—if not closer—6 mths ago."

Bove is now discussing evidence related to the E. Jean Carroll, which he calls "too attenuated, too far back in time to call into question Trump's credibility in this trial."

Bove now wonders out loud what the government's strategy will be in this case—"Are they making arguments about sexual misconduct?" He doesn't think so, he hasn't heard that yet. "This is a case about documents."

Colangelo: an important factor here is whether the unnecessary exclusion of the important impeachment process would itself distort the fact finding process and prejudice the People.

Colangelo says that the evidence shows that Trump defamed E. Jean Carroll by lying publicly and publishing defamatory statements with actual malice—that's critical evidence the jury ought to consider in determining his credibility, he says.

Next entry is Trump v. Clinton case in SDFL. Bove says it's another situation in which a judicial finding is disputed, a whole core of underlying facts, in a context where the govt is not without other permissible material to impeach Trump. "This is so far afield" from this case.

Merchan questions Bove's characterization of "dispute," Bove says it's the pending appeal. Merchan quotes the court, which wrote "here we are confronted with a lawsuit that should never have been filed," frivolous, and in bad faith. "If that's not Sandoval, I don't know what is."

I should have mentioned earlier. To follow along with the entries, you can find the document here: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455…

And, if you're so inclined, hundreds of pages of attachments, here: s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2455…

Back to Trump v. Clinton, about which Merchan said "If that's not Sandoval, I don't know what is," Bove said he understands what Merchan is saying, but only if that was the People's only entry. Merchan says the amount of evidence should have no bearing, nor is factual overlap.

I should note, at this point, that they must have figured out the temperature in here. This reporter is happy to report: it's not that chilly in here. Quite pleasant actually.

Next entry is People v. Trump Corp, Bove says the government was pretty clear that those charges were not about Trump. He quotes Hoffinger who said, "This case is not about Donald Trump, it's about his companies." (Steinglass litigated it too, and Merchan presided over it)

Defense had argued at the time Weisselberg had "gone rogue," Colangelo says, but the government was trying to prove that Trump knew about his actions. He passes up Merchan's own ruling, who said it was fair for the People to say that the owners of the corporation "knew it."

Bottom line: Colangelo argues that the corporate criminal convictions of the corporations which a defendant owned or closely controlled should be admissible.

Bove moves to the last entry at issue: James v. Trump Foundation.

Colangelo clarifies that as a director of the foundation, Trump owed fiduciary duties, which he breeched in a number of ways, the court found.

Merchan asks a follow up to Bove: several times on some of these cases you dispute the findings. Is it your position that bc a case is appealed or might be appealed that therefore it can't be used in Sandoval? Not categorically, Bove says, but should be salient to decision.

To People now: any caselaw or citations regarding the use of non-criminal matters Merchan can rely upon when dealing with prior convictions?

Broadest case is People v. Duffy, Colangelo says.

Merchan will reserve decision on Sandoval, but we'll have it Monday morning.

Merchan moves on to a couple more matters he'd like to take up related to premotion letters.

First, the defense's presidential immunity reargument premotion letter (4/16)—that the courts should preclude a number of exhibits under pres immunity, esp now that it is timely. Merchan's decision remains the same, says Trump couldve raised this when motions in limine were filed

Second defense premotion letter delimiting instruction regarding Cohen plea to FECA and AMI nonprosecution agreement (4/18), defense had submitted language to be used, People respond orally now.

You can find all of these premotion letters here, thanks to the inestimable @katherinepomps lawfaremedia.org/current-projec…

Merchan will consider both proposals, and come up with its own decision on the limiting instruction.

Merchan discusses more premotion letters and says, "Defense is literally targeting individual decisions one, by one, by one, by one, with these premotion letters...There comes a point where you accept my rulings. I've entertained your motions, your arguments, in good faith."

Steinglass raises defense's 4/17 letter about the Access Hollywood tape, which he calls a "third bite at the apple."

Merchan asks, So your Apr 17 letter sought to reargue the clarification I made on Apr 15 clarifying a March 18 in limine ruling? (rhetorically, and exhaustedly)

"This sounds suspiciously like the half an hour we spent debating this on Monday," Steinglass says to Blanche's pushback. Steinglass calls it "just another tactic," and asks Merchan to reject it.

Steinglass understood Merchan's ruling to mean that the Access Hollywood tape itself was too prejudicial, bc it contained Trump's voice and person walking off the bus, but the transcript was admissible. Merchan will reread transcript from Monday to make sure no misunderstanding.

Necheles rises for one more issue: "Of course we don't want any delay," she says, and renews defense's request to get at least one witness name from the prosecution.

"Whether you get the name or not, you're not going to delay the trial," Merchan says.

Steinglass says that unless Merchan orders it, he won't grant that, also says defense won't get time to cross Monday anyway, but will provide one witness name to defense counsel Sunday evening—but if they're tweeted, that'll never happen again.

Before we end, Trump stands up abruptly.

"Sir can you please have a seat," Merchan says.

He must have been a bit antsy to go, it's been a long week.

At 4:28 p.m., Merchan thanks everyone and exits.

We'll see you Monday.

Trump and defense counsel walk out a few moments later, as the press remains seated.

As @KlasfeldReports points out here, Trump's alleged contempt violations are already biting him—Merchan emphasized the 10 contempt counts against him in that last exchange regarding witness lists, and we haven't even had the hearing yet.

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1781420397675597883

@KlasfeldReports And that's a wrap on jury selection.

It has been, well, a week.

Allow me to humbly put out the tip jar one final time this week, and thank everyone for contributing to @lawfare's coverage of this and all of Trump's trials. givebutter.com/c/trumptrials/…

A quick coda, and cliffhanger.

Per the pool, as Trump left the courtroom, a reporter asked if he will testify.

Trump looked over and announced, “Yes.”

He turned and left without staying another word.