NEW YORK — The legal framework that a Manhattan jury will use to evaluate the charges against former President Donald Trump will be unveiled by Judge Juan Merchan on Wednesday.
The long-anticipated jury instructions will come nearly a week later than initially scheduled, amid widespread speculation about the precise legal criteria the jury will consider in assessing the charges of falsifying business records in the first degree against Trump.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, an elected Democrat, has charged Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree, to which Trump has pleaded not guilty. The jury instructions are set to follow a day of closing arguments from both the prosecution and defense.
Prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified records to hide a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels in the run-up to the 2016 election, allegedly to silence her about a purported affair from 2006 — specifically to sway the race. Trump has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
Court proceedings will resume on Wednesday at 10:00 a.m. with the jury instructions. Then, the jury will begin deliberating on a verdict.
Over the objections of Trump’s defense team, Merchan determined that the jury need not unanimously agree on which predicate crime Trump committed, so long as they all determine that he committed one of the handful of options. Prosecutors have suggested the “other crime” is related to violates of state and federal election law, but they did not charge Trump with any additional crimes. Bragg’s team used the predicate crime to bump the misdemeanor charges related to falsifying documents up to felonies; otherwise, the statute of limitations would have prevented the case from advancing.
“If a predicate crime exists, the jury can still issue a verdict on the 34 counts at the felony level. Conversely, if no predicate crime exists, none of the counts can be felonies,” New York attorney Alton Harmon told the Washington Examiner.
Harmon stressed that all jurors must agree “beyond a reasonable doubt” that a predicate crime exists in order to convict. “That still must be unanimous,” Harmon said.
“The prosecution never offered an alternate theory about what should have been documented in those accounting records even if they can tie Trump to them,” Katie Cherkasky, a former federal prosecutor, told the Washington Examiner.
Harmon said that Trump would likely seek to appeal a possible conviction in part on the basis of the judge’s instructions to the jury.
On Tuesday, Trump’s defense attorneys asserted his innocence, arguing that Bragg had failed to meet the burden of proof.
“President Trump is innocent. He did not commit any crimes. The district attorney did not meet the burden of proof. Period,” defense attorney Blanche told the jury.
Blanche characterized the case as straightforward and not warranting a guilty verdict. “This case is about documents; it is a paper case,” he said. “It is not about an encounter with Stormy Daniels 18 years ago, nor is it about a nondisclosure agreement signed eight years ago.”
Blanche emphasized that the charges hinge on whether Trump had any involvement with the payments to his former attorney, Michael Cohen, in his personal accounting records. “The bookings were accurate, there was no intent to defraud, and there was no conspiracy to influence the 2016 election,” Blanche argued. “The proof doesn’t add up.”
Blanche further contended that Trump could not be convicted based on Cohen’s testimony, noting Cohen’s history of dishonesty. “The records are not false and there was no intent to defraud,” he said. Blanche pointed out that no invoices were sent directly to Trump and that Cohen billed Trump for legitimate services as his personal attorney in 2017. Even if Cohen’s workload was minimal, Blanche explained, there was still a retainer agreement in place. “Cohen was on call for President Trump,” he said.
He also noted that checks to Cohen were not signed by Trump. “You can’t convict President Trump because he sometimes reviewed invoices. That’s a stretch and that’s reasonable doubt,” Blanche argued, labeling Cohen as the “human embodiment of reasonable doubt.”
In contrast, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass delivered an extensive five-hour closing argument, asserting that the evidence against Trump was compelling. Steinglass argued that Trump’s intent to defraud “could not be any clearer,” suggesting that Trump created an elaborate scheme instead of simply paying Daniels directly. “The name of the game was concealment, and all roads lead inescapably to the man who benefited the most: the defendant, former President Donald Trump,” Steinglass stated.
Steinglass defended the prosecution’s reliance on Cohen as a witness. “I’m not asking you to feel bad for Michael Cohen. He made his bed,” he said. “But you can’t blame him for profiting from his knowledge of the Trump Organization.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“We didn’t choose Michael Cohen to be our witness. The defendant chose him to be his fixer because he was willing to lie and cheat on the defendant’s behalf,” Steinglass explained.
Concluding his argument Tuesday evening, Steinglass cited a well-known Trump quote: “Donald Trump can’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue at rush hour and get away with it,” prompting an objection from Trump’s lawyer, which the judge sustained.
Trump has maintained his plea of not guilty to all charges and denies Daniels’s affair allegations.