Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What key pieces of evidence (documents, testimony, recordings) were introduced in each conviction?
Executive summary
You asked which key pieces of evidence — documents, testimony, recordings — were introduced in each conviction. Available sources do not provide a comprehensive list of evidence admitted in any specific set of convictions; the provided reporting mainly concerns procedural rules about evidence (Federal Rules and Advisory Committee work) and a few discrete case mentions (e.g., People v. Harmon, Trump hush‑money case) rather than catalogs of exhibits used at trial (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What the materials you supplied actually cover — rules and procedure, not full trial exhibits
The documents in your search results include rule texts and committee agendas that address when and how criminal convictions or prior acts may be used for impeachment and the admissibility of evidence (Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 609 and Advisory Committee agenda material), but those sources do not enumerate the specific trial exhibits (documents, witness statements, audio/video) that produced individual convictions [1] [2] [5].
2. Example: People v. Harmon (emoji/Facebook message) — what reporting mentions
A legal blog post about People v. Harmon (an unpublished California appellate opinion) notes that a Facebook message evidencing purported gun ownership (displaying emojis in the original record) was presented at trial and later contested on appeal; the appellate discussion turned on how the emojis were displayed and whether the trial judge had notice of them when ruling on a motion in limine [4]. The blog does not supply the complete set of trial exhibits or a transcript listing all testimony and recordings admitted at trial [4].
3. Example: Trump hush‑money conviction — focus on grounds to overturn, not the exhibit list
Reuters reports that the U.S. government filed a brief arguing President Trump’s New York hush‑money conviction should be thrown out because it rested on improper evidence and a legal theory preempted by federal law; the story summarizes the DOJ’s appellate position but does not itemize every document, testimony, or recording admitted at the May 2024 trial [3]. Reuters notes the conviction involved 34 felony counts of falsifying business records but does not function as an evidentiary inventory [3].
4. What the Federal Rules and Advisory Committee materials tell you about evidence admissibility
The Federal Rules of Evidence (Rule 609) and related Advisory Committee materials in your results explain governing principles — for example, impeachment by prior conviction, limits tied to convictions older than ten years, and proposed clarifications about weighing probative value versus prejudice — which shape whether a particular document or prior act can be introduced, even if those sources don’t list the trial exhibits themselves [1] [5] [2]. These rules give context for why certain evidence admitted at trial can later be challenged on appeal [1] [5].
5. Why public reporting often omits exhaustive exhibit lists
The results illustrate a common reporting pattern: appellate filings, committee agendas, and news stories highlight legal arguments about admissibility or key disputed items (e.g., an incriminating Facebook message or claims of improper evidence) rather than publishing complete exhibit lists or trial transcripts. For example, the Harmon discussion centers on emoji display and appellate reasoning; the Reuters piece centers on the DOJ’s grounds to seek reversal — neither is an evidentiary inventory [4] [3].
6. How to get the precise exhibit-by-exhibit breakdown if you need it
Available sources do not mention how to obtain full trial exhibit lists for the cases referenced. Typical next steps (not described in the provided documents) would be to consult the trial court docket and exhibits on PACER or the state court file, the appellate briefs and opinions (which sometimes summarize key exhibits), or contemporaneous trial transcripts; those specific records are not present in the search results you supplied (not found in current reporting).
7. Editorial takeaway — rules matter as much as exhibits when convictions are contested
Your materials show that appellate strategy often targets legal rules about admissibility (Rule 609 and committee guidance) and a few pivotal pieces of evidence reported in media summaries (e.g., a Facebook message in Harmon or the DOJ’s characterization of evidence in the Trump filing) rather than trying to relitigate every document or testimony from the trial record in public coverage [1] [4] [3]. Where sources focus on a single contested exhibit, that item is typically presented as pivotal — but the underlying trial record (full exhibits and testimony) is needed for a definitive, exhibit‑by‑exhibit accounting (not found in current reporting).