Legal Analysts Share Thoughts About Trump Trial

Former President Donald Trump speaks to the press at Manhattan Criminal Court in New York City on April 30, 2024. Justin Lane/AFP

After a six-week trial in Manhattan Criminal Court, the jury has heard the closing arguments in former President Donald Trump’s New York trial.

Tuesday marked the final effort by President Trump’s defense team to persuade the jury that the former president did not conceal information about payment made to Stephanie Clifford, better known as adult actress Stormy Daniels, before the 2016 presidential election.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg filed charges against the former president in April 2023 for allegedly falsifying business records for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.

The case revolves around a $130,000 payment Ms. Clifford received in 2016 from President Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen.

The prosecution maintains that President Trump unlawfully falsified business documents to conceal the payment and prevent Ms. Clifford from disclosing her claims that she'd had an affair with the former president several years prior. President Trump has refuted her claims about an alleged affair.

The Defense Rests

The defense has attempted to discredit Mr. Cohen and other prosecution witnesses throughout the trial by painting him as a habitual liar with a grudge against his former employer.

In 2018, Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty to federal charges of tax evasion and making false statements to a federally-insured bank, as well as campaign finance violations.

Paul Kamenar, lead counsel for the Washington-based National Legal and Policy Center, told The Epoch Times that the defense discredited Mr. Cohen’s testimony.

“Cohen is a convicted liar whose words can’t be trusted,” Mr. Kamenar said. “There is no election law violation. Trump can give as much money as he wants for staff, consultants, computers, or even money that might protect his reputation.”

Todd Blanche, President Trump’s lead defense attorney, informed the jury that the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Republican nominee for president in 2024 had unlawfully fabricated the documents.

President Trump pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts related to the case.

Mr. Kamenar said he sees the indictment as government overreach.

“There is no election law violation in this two-bit bookkeeping charge,” he told The Epoch Times. “The prosecution is trying to bootstrap this case into a felony to influence the campaign.”

Prosecution Makes Closing Arguments

The government must prove that President Trump intended to violate election laws and that false records were purposely produced to cover up his relationship with Ms. Clifford.

“The prosecution calls the charge ‘hush-money,’ but it was a nondisclosure agreement, which is 100 percent legal,” Mr. Kamenar said. “Furthermore, Trump can give unlimited amounts of money to his own campaign.”

Jeremy Rosenthal, a former prosecutor in Texas and founding partner of the Rosenthal Barbieri law firm, told The Epoch Times that the prosecution was meticulous and calculated.

“I don’t think they had much of a choice, but they built their case around Cohen,” said Mr. Rosenthal. “They engaged a ‘paper cut’ strategy parading one witness after another to enhance Cohen’s credibility.”

Hope Hicks, President Trump’s former director of communications, was one such witness for the prosecution. She testified how the president responded in 2016 and 2018 to news reports claiming he had extramarital sexual encounters and tried to hide them. Former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker also testified against the former president.

“All trials get weird,” Mr. Rosenthal told The Epoch Times. “In a case like this, the prosecutor is Einstein, and the defense is Mozart.”

The Scales of Justice

The jury will ultimately determine whether President Trump becomes the first former president to be found guilty of a felony.

After both sides have concluded their closing arguments, the judge will instruct the jury on the applicable laws and the factors it can consider during deliberations.

For criminal trials in New York State, the jury of 12 individuals must unanimously agree on the verdict. This means a single juror may act as a holdout, resulting in a hung jury. If the jurors can’t reach a consensus, New York State Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, would have to declare a mistrial.

The defense has expressed concern about whether the scales of justice will function as designed, especially following Justice Merchan’s gag order on President Trump.

“Politics in the legal system cannot be avoided,” Mr. Rosenthal told The Epoch Times. “It’s present at all levels of the court.”

U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) filed an ethics complaint last year against Justice Merchan. She asserts Justice Merchan’s family has profited monetarily from anti-Trump fundraising.

Ms. Stefanik specifically expressed concern about Justice Merchan’s daughter, a Democratic Party strategist. She contends that the judge cannot act impartially, given that the political clients of his daughter’s employer stand to gain or lose from a conviction or acquittal in the Trump case.

Last week, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct dismissed the year-old ethics complaint.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, told The Epoch Times that Justice Merchan “enabled the lawlessness of this case” by allowing it to move forward.

“He is compromised ethically as a donor to the Biden campaign,” Mr. Fitton said.

“The jury process is being abused and being used to give credence in a kangaroo court,” Mr. Fitton told The Epoch Times. “Typically, a jury would not get this case because there are no charges.”

Mr. Rosenthal says President Trump may be found not guilty of any of the 34 charges, guilty of some and not guilty of others, or guilty of all 34 charges.

If found guilty, President Trump may file an appeal. His case would be heard by the Appellate Division of the First Department of the New York Supreme Court, and it might be appealed once more to the highest court in the state, the New York State Court of Appeals.

Notably, the court recently reversed Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 sex crimes conviction. In that case, the court said its decision was based on critical errors made by the trial judge in permitting biased testimony.

“The New York Court of Appeals would most likely reverse the case if there were no actual election violation,” said Mr. Rosenthal.