Editor’s note: Joey Jackson is a criminal defense attorney and legal analyst for CNN and HLN. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.read more opinion On CNN.
CNN
—
It was a little more than a year ago, on April 3, 2023, that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg announced 34 criminal charges against former President Donald J. Trump. The trial against Trump has now begun, with opening statements scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. Monday.
Jeremy Freeman/CNN
joey jackson
Trump is accused of falsifying invoices and business ledgers and sending reimbursement checks to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen under the guise that they were payments for legal services rendered.
Prosecutors allege they were not, but rather a refund of $130,000 that Mr. Cohen paid to former adult actress Stormy Daniels on Mr. Trump’s behalf. Mr. Daniels was paid to prevent her from going out with Mr. Trump before her election in order to hide their relationship and thereby increase Mr. Trump’s election chances. It is said that
In New York state, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison. However, if it can be proven that the reason for the falsification was to commit another crime, as prosecutors allege in this case, it would be a felony punishable by up to four years in prison.
This means prosecutors have two tasks to secure a conviction against the former president. First, the fraudulent nature of the business records underlying the alleged scheme must be established. Second, it must be proven that President Trump’s intent to falsify records was related to the 2016 presidential election.
In its simplest form, that is the prosecutor’s case against the former president.
Despite what jurors say during the jury selection process, you can’t help but wonder what’s going on in their minds. Are they starstruck? Have you been threatened? Do you agree or disagree with President Trump? The truth is, we won’t know until the process is over and the jury returns its verdict. At that point, jurors may or may not choose to publicly explain their decision.
President Trump said prosecutors had “no charges” against him. We’ll soon find out if that’s true. There is no doubt that prosecutors will take a very different position when opening statements begin. But both sides will be careful to tailor their opening arguments to the intended audience: the jury. They are the ones whose opinions matter most in this case.
The court has an 18-person panel, consisting of 12 jurors and six critical alternates, which can be used in cases where a juror needs to be excused, such as when a juror has personal information. This is because one or more jurors may be asked to substitute in case of unforeseen circumstances. In case of emergency, or simply stop the incident. The longer the trial drags on, the more likely it is.
As for the 12-member primary jury, it is surprising how many experts are seated. This includes two lawyers, a technical staff, a software engineer, a financial expert, a teacher, and a salesperson. In my view, it is a group that focuses on facts, logic, documentation, and evidence. This could be a very good thing for President Trump, as he is unlikely to base his decisions on politics.
However, it may be difficult for him because the jury may prove to be calm and unemotional, and defense arguments such as prosecutorial unfairness, government overreach, and witch hunts may prove unpersuasive. It may also work against you.
Opening statements are not evidence, but they are designed to provide a preview of what the evidence will show, and I expect them to be rock solid. We can expect a logical representation of the evidence they are going to present, consisting of ledgers, invoices, checks, text messages, emails, voice recordings, and other documents.
You can also expect to distinguish between messengers and messages. For example, as many know, Cohen is a convicted felon and perjurer. Daniels has lived a life that some people find offensive. We expect prosecutors to speak freely about that, just as they would during jury selection. But they will also condition the jury by arguing that the jury does not have to rely on the word of a single witness.
Instead, prosecutors will ask jurors to focus on documentary evidence that supports and corroborates the witnesses’ claims. That is, you can expect them to focus first and foremost on the document that explains the hush money scheme. Witnesses are merely “messengers” who emphasize facts that have already been established by convincing and hard evidence. Prosecutors will try to lessen the sting of the defense’s attack on the witness’ credibility by arguing that the message itself, the evidence of Trump’s guilt, is unmistakable. They will argue that the texts, emails and documents irrefutably prove his guilt.
Regarding the question of President Trump’s intentions, prosecutors will point out that it defies common sense and logic that President Trump paid hush money for any reason other than hiding it from voters. In addition to pointing to the timing of the payments days before the 2016 election, they will almost certainly point to communications and statements made at meetings where the plan and its objectives were allegedly discussed. I don’t expect prosecutors to get into the weeds on Monday about what the evidence will show, but I do expect prosecutors’ briefs to be organized and focused, with a detailed timeline of events, facts, and participants. I hope that it will be linked to.
The defense team’s opening argument is a wild card filled with challenges, but there are several options. The first is to work on the actual defense. But what does it look like and does it work?
Team Trump can say he is completely innocent and the state’s case is built on a series of lies with no basis in fact. However, this comes with risks. After all, if the state can prove that none of the payments President Trump made to then-attorney Cohen were for legal services and there was no subordination agreement, why did President Trump Will they pay? A jury may find such a claim difficult to believe.
Another defense strategy could be to adopt the strategy used by former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who was indicted on federal campaign finance charges more than a decade ago. During his trial, Mr. Edwards successfully argued that he hid the birth of his baby to protect his wife and family, not to deceive voters.
But in Mr. Trump’s case, a similar defense would pose significant risks. He will have to plead guilty to falsifying his business records. The defense would have to admit that he was a criminal, even if it was minor, and would contradict public statements he had made about the case.
If he were to go down that path, he would be effectively saying, “Yes, I did it, but my intention was to save my marriage.” It had nothing to do with the election. Trump would have already admitted to the entire underlying plan thanks to his defense work. That would allow prosecutors to shift the focus of the case from his alleged conspiracy to his motives, whether it was for his family or to improve his chances of becoming president. it could be moved. But it seems unlikely that President Trump would plead guilty to even a relatively minor crime.
The other option used by the defense in opening arguments is a common option and is often the safest bet. In other words, the Trump campaign will simply ask jurors to keep an open mind throughout the trial. When adopting this strategy, defense attorneys will remind jurors that the standard of proving guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high bar.
Get our free weekly newsletter
Their next step will be to thoroughly bash the unsavory nature of the state witnesses and argue that they cannot be trusted. They may then move on to discussing how Trump should or should not be found guilty simply because of his politics or because someone despises him. do not have. The last thing I’m looking forward to as the trial begins is whether the defense will make any commitments about whether Trump will testify. He has publicly stated that he intends to do so, but it will likely be a game time decision.
History is unfolding before us. No president has been criminally prosecuted since the Declaration of Independence was signed nearly 250 years ago. That being said, everyone is and should be considered equal under the law, and everyone, even former presidents, enjoys the presumption of innocence.
So here we are. Did Trump break the law? After Monday’s opening statements and an opportunity to hear evidence revealed during the trial, the jury will reach a verdict.
