The trial of former President Donald Trump is the first criminal trial ever held against a former president in history. Currently, it is in the crucial final stage with both prosecution and defense teams taking a temporary break.
Witness testimony concluded on Tuesday morning, but the most important part of the case unfolded in the courtroom just hours later that same afternoon.
During the afternoon hearing, lawyers for both sides engaged in arguments over the definitions of terms like “intent,” “conspiracy to commit a crime,” “deliberate action,” and “lawful news function,” as well as what content should be included or excluded.
Prosecutors argued that “illegal” does not necessarily equate to “criminal,” asserting that President Trump does not have to commit a specific crime to be found part of a conspiracy, and intent to conspire does not require “evidence” according to precedent. Defense lawyers contended that there was not enough evidence in this case to submit to a jury.
Judge Juan Merchan of the New York Supreme Court reserved judgment on many of the issues raised.
These judgments will determine whether the case proceeds to a jury trial and, if so, how the jurors will interpret the case.
The charges in this case have an unusual structure, with much of the defense’s contention revolving around interpretations of the law rather than factual issues in the testimonies.
President Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, with the prosecution alleging that the falsification was to cover up a second offense, elevating a misdemeanor to a felony.
The second charge, not specifically detailed in the initial indictment, is referred to in court as “intent to influence an election,” pertaining to a regulation prohibiting conspiracies to promote or hinder an individual’s election. Following arguments, the judge sided with the prosecution that no specific definition for this term is needed.
The defense subsequently argued that the government must define the “intent to defraud” related to President Trump.
Lawyer Emil Bove said, “We believe the government needs to show that President Trump attempted to conceal.”
Prosecutors argued that evidence was not necessary, as explaining the second charge was not legally required. Defense attorneys opposed telling the jury from the outset that they do not need to find evidence, as the burden of proof indeed lies with the prosecution.
Defense lawyer Todd Blanche argued that New York law recognizes conspiracy charges requiring an element of “intent,” while the prosecution argued it should be “intent.”
Bove contended that none of the actions alleged constituted criminal wrongdoing, while the prosecution argued it was not necessary.
Colangelo said, “Election law provides that when two or more persons conspire by illegal means to induce someone to hold public office, it constitutes a violation of 152, illegal means do not mean a crime but refer to a legal violation.”
The jury will be instructed that the prosecution needs to prove President Trump’s intention to defraud, though defense lawyers requested instructions emphasizing evidence of intent to carry out or conceal criminal schemes.
The debate both in and out of the courtroom is intense, partly due to President Trump ultimately not testifying.
Outside the courtroom, President Trump has often claimed that the timing of this case is to interfere with elections, tracing the allegations against him back to 2015. He referenced a tell-all book written by Mark Pomerantz, alleging he resigned from the office of Allen Weisselberg due to their hesitancy in prosecuting the former president. He claimed that federal prosecutors and various agencies reviewed the charges in this case but declined to prosecute, and even Weisselberg himself expressed reluctance to take on the case.
These aspects are not allowed in court. Prosecutors are working to prevent any arguments related to this case being politically motivated, meaning that even if President Trump takes the witness stand, he must adhere to a more restricted script than he did when freely testifying in a civil case last fall.
At the onset of the trial proceedings, Trump also criticized Cohen and Stephanie Clifford, who received $130,000 at the heart of the case but a gag order stops President Trump from continuing to criticize them once the trial begins.
On Tuesday, Trump hinted that if the judge makes a ruling unfavorable to him during deliberations, he is willing to risk violating the gag order to make a statement.
Defense lawyers have appealed the gag order to the New York appellate court.
Though Cohen is often referred to as the star witness for the prosecution, most of his testimony has been about defending his own credibility, with the prosecution viewing him as just a piece of the puzzle.
In contrast, the prosecution believes the records themselves in this case can speak to the issues, and they have worked to input a large amount of phone records, texts, emails, contracts, checks, and even excerpts from books published by Trump in the 1990s. Much of the testimony has been about inputting records rather than providing personal knowledge about President Trump’s statements or actions.
They have called witnesses from AT&T, First Republic Bank, and publishing companies to verify some of the records and documents.
Legal aides and analysts took the stand to input specific social media posts, phone call batches, and communication contents as evidence.
They subpoenaed several of Trump’s former aides to speak about Trump’s habits of signing checks and signatures.
Throughout the trial, and even before it began, the defense has been making motions. They submitted multiple motions to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, not to be confused with the New York Court of Appeals.
They also filed a motion to dismiss the case in court, which Judge Merchan has not ruled on yet. Earlier, they presented a motion for a mistrial, which was rejected by the judge.
On Monday, after a recess from the prosecution, the defense moved for the case to be dismissed and then argued that Cohen should be considered unreliable by the judge.
Blanche said, “The court cannot let a jury try this case based solely on Cohen’s testimony; without his testimony, there is no case to discuss, he has lied repeatedly, he also lied this morning; when he testified directly about a phone call, we presented irrefutable evidence.”
Judge Merchan said, “So you are asking me to find Cohen not credible under the law.”
Mr. Blanche said, “Yes, his continued lying should not shake the court.”
On Tuesday afternoon, they again argued that the trial record lacked the necessary facts for jury deliberations.
Bove said, “When Michael Cohen said he knew nothing about this, someone asked him why Allen Weisselberg wrote the total as $420,000, he replied, ‘I don’t know, I just wanted to expense my money,’ the government is talking about Cohen’s tax filing; the Trump organization is transparent, that does not imply some agreement for Cohen to make false filings, and Cohen knew nothing about it.”
Bove argued that there was also no evidence to suggest that former President Trump or the Trump organization had made deductions on the relevant payments.
Bove said, “There is not enough evidence to submit this case to the jury.”