In a recent court session, New York Supreme Court Judge Diane Kiesel shed light on how juries typically deal with inconsistencies in witness testimonies. The discussion arose during a pivotal moment in the trial involving Todd Blanch and references to Michael Cohen's grand jury testimony.
During the proceedings, Blanch raised concerns about a phone call involving Keith Schiller and Donald Trump that had not been previously mentioned to prosecutors. This led to a debate on whether the jury should consider this new information and its implications on the case.
Judge Kiesel explained that juries are provided with specific instructions on how to handle inconsistencies, both internal to a witness's testimony and between different witnesses. The jury is guided to assess whether the inconsistencies are minor and expected over time or if they strike at the core of the case.
She emphasized the importance of jurors meticulously analyzing all the information presented to them and determining the significance of any discrepancies. This critical evaluation process underscores the need for prosecutors to provide corroborating evidence to support their case, especially when dealing with witnesses like Michael Cohen who may have credibility challenges.
Ultimately, the jury's ability to discern the relevance of inconsistencies plays a crucial role in the outcome of the trial. Their task is to weigh the evidence carefully and make informed decisions based on the facts presented in court.
