Trump Trial: Key Points Ahead of Closing Arguments

NEW YORK — Testimony in the criminal hush money trial against former President Donald Trump has concluded after more than four weeks and nearly two dozen witnesses, moving the case to the crucial stages of closing arguments, jury deliberations, and a possible verdict.

Trump faces 34 felony charges of falsifying business records with the intent to commit or conceal other crimes relating to payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels to maintain her silence about an alleged sexual encounter in 2006. Trump has pleaded not guilty and denies the affair. Despite the structure of the falsified records charges, he has not been charged with any other crimes.

Here is what to know as closing arguments in the historic first criminal trial against a former president begin.

Closing arguments

On Tuesday, both Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg‘s prosecutors and Trump’s defense attorneys will present their closing arguments, providing a summary of the key points they presented throughout the roughly four weeks of testimony. These arguments are not evidence but will serve to reinforce their narratives to the jury. Prosecutors will likely emphasize the credibility of the Trump Organization’s financial documents and testimony from key witnesses, including Daniels and Michael Cohen, who implicated Trump in the hush money payments.

The closing arguments come after the 12-member jury, which has six alternates, took a weeklong break from the trial beginning last Tuesday and extending through Memorial Day. Trump attorney Alina Habba argued on Monday that the jury should have been sequestered over concerns that the long break and conversations with peers could influence their decisions.

“And for them to be able to be out and about on a holiday weekend with friends and families who have opinions, who are watching the news, TVs in the background at the pool party, I have serious concerns. If they’re left-wing and they’re watching MSDNC, as my client calls it, [MSNBC] or CNN, they’re not going to get fair news,” Habba told Fox News.

Defense strategy

The defense, having called only two witnesses and not Trump, needs to instill reasonable doubt in at least one juror to avoid a conviction. They are expected to challenge Daniels’s testimony and Cohen’s credibility, arguing that Trump’s primary concern was protecting his family, not influencing the election.

Some lawyers have said Trump’s team will need to present an argument “that raises reasonable doubt,” according to attorney George Conway, who told MSNBC on Saturday that he believes it would be the way for Trump to gain a full acquittal.

“I think their best shot, and that’s what they’re gonna do, is hope that there’s just some person on the jury who just refuses to convict,” Conway said.

But other legal experts said Trump’s legal team, led by Todd Blanche, Susan Necheles, and Emil Bove, might flag to the jury that the prosecution’s key witness never took the stand. That witness is Allen Weisselberg, the former Trump Organization chief financial officer who, prosecutors say, was in a room with Trump and Cohen at Trump Tower when they worked out the details of what Bragg’s team described as a conspiracy.

Weisselberg was never called to the stand in part because he is serving time for a crime that began with him making false statements in a court of law. He was sentenced to five months in Rikers Island after pleading guilty to perjury in an unrelated civil case involving Trump, a man with whom he worked for nearly 50 years.

Prosecutors likely thought Weisselberg’s testimony could damage their case further, given that Cohen has a past of inconsistent testimony. Trump lawyers also did not choose him to call the longtime CFO to the stand. It’s not clear if Weisselberg would have confirmed Cohen’s version of events had he been called to testify.

The defense “just needs to point out the failures to prove and failures to call relevant witnesses that might have had information that could give the jury more to think about,” attorney Katie Cherkasky told the Washington Examiner earlier this month.

Judge’s instructions

Judge Juan M. Merchan will instruct the jurors on the legal standards they must follow before they decide on the verdict. This step, possibly happening on Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning, is crucial because it guides the jury on what to consider during deliberations.

Jury deliberations

The jury will then deliberate in private, evaluating 34 counts of falsifying business records. This process is confidential and can vary in length. Jurors may request clarifications or testimony excerpts, but the exact nature of their discussions is unknown.

There are also two lawyers on the jury, a rather uncommon occurrence after a thorough jury selection process. Some lawyers have said the pair of attorneys on the jury could take on a “strong leadership position” that could affect the votes of the other 10 members.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Possible outcomes

A unanimous decision is required for a verdict on each count of business falsifications made between February and December of 2017. If the jury cannot reach a consensus, Merchan may instruct them to continue deliberating. Persistent deadlock could lead to a mistrial declaration.

The coming days are pivotal in determining the outcome of this landmark case, with each step bringing it closer to resolution.