Closing arguments for Trump's trial have been made. What now?

This episode delves into the closing arguments of former President Donald Trump's hush money trial and analyzes their potential impacts on the verdict and Trump's future.

1. The trial hinges on whether Trump falsified business records to conceal an affair, influencing the 2016 election.
2. The defense and prosecution presented contrasting narratives, focusing either on Trump’s ignorance of the details or the systematic cover-up.
3. Jurors, portrayed as meticulous and aware of the trial's gravity, are crucial in determining the outcome.
4. The episode raises questions about jury nullification and the appropriateness of discussing potential sentencing during closing arguments.
5. Trump’s ongoing influence and public commentary add complexity to the trial's public and legal perceptions.

1: Opening Insights

Juana Summers outlines the trial's stakes and key figures. Juana Summers: "For the first time in American history, a former president is going on trial as a criminal defendant."

2: Defense's Strategy

Exploration of the defense's closing arguments and their implications. Donald Trump: "This is really a concerted witch hunt."

3: Prosecution's Rebuttal

Analysis of the prosecution's approach and narrative in the closing arguments. Adam Schlawhead: "Steinglass has a pile of evidence to support what Michael Cohen is saying."

4: Jury Dynamics

Discussion on the jury's composition and its potential biases given Trump’s notoriety. Juana Summers: "Finding twelve people who don't have an opinion about Donald Trump, it's just impossible."

1. Understand the importance of jury impartiality in high-profile cases.
2. Recognize the potential impacts of public figures' comments on legal proceedings.
3. Consider the role of media in shaping public perception of legal cases.
4. Evaluate the effectiveness of legal arguments and evidence presentation.
5. Stay informed on legal and political developments to better understand their broader implications.

Nearly two dozen witnesses and 21 days of court later, Donald Trump's New York hush money trial is coming to a close.

Twelve New Yorkers have been listening to witnesses like adult film actor Stormy Daniels and Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen.

Today, those jurors heard closing arguments, first from the defense, and then the prosecution. Now, they have to determine whether Trump falsified business records to cover up an alleged affair with Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

What final impressions did the closing arguments leave, and what could that mean for Donald Trump?

People

Donald Trump, Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen, Harry Littman, Adam Schlawhead, Juana Summers

Companies

None

Books

None

Guest Name(s):

None

Content Warnings:

None

Juana Summers
Nearly two dozen witnesses and 21 days of court later, Donald Trump's New York hush money trial is coming to a close, and NPR has been bringing you reports of this historic trial throughout. For the first time in american history, a former president is going on trial as a criminal defendant. Former President Trump faces 34 felony counts alleging that he falsified New York business records in order to conceal damaging information ahead of the 2016 presidential election. And the Manhattan Da, which has struggled to articulate its theory of the case, took a page from Trump's book by really repeating the idea that this is about election fraud, a conspiracy to affect the outcome. The twelve New Yorkers tasked with evaluating the evidence have listened to testimony from some of the most prominent characters in Trump's orbit, like adult film actor Stormy Daniels and Trump's former fixer Michael Cohen.

Meanwhile, the former president has been under a gag order, which he has violated multiple times. Before and after his days in court, Trump has given reporters his read on the trial. This is really a concerted witch hunt. Very simple. Everything you heard in there, this is a witch hunt.

Today, jurors had a chance to hear the closing arguments, first from the defense and then the prosecution, to determine whether Trump falsified business records to cover up an alleged affair with Daniels ahead of the 2016 presidential election. The most important thing is being able to observe the jury, and I did that really as intently as I could. Former deputy assistant attorney general Harry Littman has been a first person observer over the course of Trump's trial. They're a pretty fastidious bunch, kind of close to the vest. They're aware, I think, of the gravity of the case.

Consider this. Donald Trump may be facing the most important week of his landmark hush money trial as twelve New Yorkers decide the fate of the former and possible future president of the United States. What final impressions did the closing arguments leave, and what could that mean for Donald Trump?

From NPR, I'm Juana Summers. This message comes from NPR. Sponsor Organic Valley, a co op of small organic family farms, farmer Tyler Webb shares why caring for his land has always been a priority. I'd like to contribute to my community an array of ecosystem services beyond just milk, building topsoil, and holding on to water and supporting wildlife to build that resilience that will support generations to come. Discover organic Valley dairy at OV dot coop ethicallysourced.

No name provided
This message comes from NPR. Sponsor the Capital one Venture X card. Earn unlimited two x miles on everything you buy, plus get access to a $300 annual credit for bookings through Capital one travel what's in your wallet terms? Apply details at Capital one.com dot. This message comes from NPR sponsor Mint mobile.

From the gas pump to the grocery store, inflation is everywhere. So Mint mobile is offering premium wireless starting at just dollar 15 a month. To get your new phone plan for just dollar 15, go to mintmobile.com switch.

Juana Summers
It'S consider this from NPR. Through courtroom sketches and impressions from reporters inside the courtroom, Americans have been learning about Donald Trump's historic hush money trial for more than a month. Today, twelve jurors who have been sequestered finally heard closing statements from the prosecution and defense. With those final impressions in mind, jurors will decide whether Trump committed election fraud ahead of the 2016 presidential election by falsifying business records and arranging hush money payments that would prevent damaging stories about him from coming out. Adam Schlawhead has been following the case.

He is a jury expert and a professor at Fordham Law School in New York. He joins me now. Hello. Nice to be here. Thank you.

Thanks. So, Adam, we'll point out that you have not actually been inside the courtroom, but you've been paying close attention to reports of the defense's closing arguments. And you told us you were watching for two possible types of final arguments from the defense. Tell us about that. Yeah, I think there's two scenarios.

Donald Trump
One is what a white collar criminal defense attorney would do in this case, which is a precise, strategic, very clear case theory closing argument, or the closing argument that Donald Trump wants, which is more of a scorched earth kind of closing argument where everyone's a liar, everyone's out to get the president. And it seems like Blanche did a little mixture of both. Say more about that. Yeah, I think he tried to focus the case on Michael Cohen, but unfortunately, the defense, and it's not Blanche's fault, but the defense just didn't really have a story to tell. The closest thing they had to a story was, you know, Trump didn't know what he was signing.

And even if he did know what he was signing, it was perfectly legitimate legal expenses. And that's just not all that compelling, whereas Steinglass from the prosecution has a very compelling story to tell. All right, I want to stay with the former president's lawyer, Todd Blanche, that you were just talking about. He said in his closing argument to the judge that he shouldn't send Donald Trump to prison over this. And Judge Mershon apparently had a pretty strong reaction to that statement.

Juana Summers
Can you explain why? Yeah, I thought that was really shocking that Blanche would say that, because that is something that a first year assistant district attorney, a first year criminal defense attorney, they know that you are not supposed to talk about potential sentences during a closing argument or any time during the trial because the jury is not supposed to be considering what the punishment is going to be. They are not supposed to be considering what the sentence might be. They are only supposed to be considering the facts and whether or not somebody is guilty or not guilty of a crime. So by Blanche saying that, don't send them to prison, right.

Donald Trump
He's almost asking the jury to nullify whatever verdict they were going to give. Yes, he might be guilty, but it's not worth sending him to prison. And that's jury nullification. And that is totally improper. Okay, switching gears here, I want to talk about the prosecution a bit.

Juana Summers
Broadly speaking, how would you characterize their tactics in these closing arguments? Well, it's, it's a pretty impressive feat to try to marshal this evidence, and it's taking a long time. And the jury is going in. They're going to be staying after five, which is unusual. And they're probably a little exhausted.

Donald Trump
And I bet that Steinglass would have preferred to finish tomorrow morning. But they're soldiering on. He's going through all of the evidence. He's going through a timeline with incredible precision and detail. And he's been doing what a good prosecutor needs to do in this kind of case, which is give the jury this kind of global view.

Right. A real wide angle lens to be able to see all of the evidence and how it fits together instead of what the defense wants the jury to do, which is absolutely focus on Michael Cohen. And if you don't like Michael Cohen, you can't convict. I mean, Joshua Steinglass has spent a lot of time arguing that no matter what Michael Cohen did, no matter what Stormy Daniels thinks about former President Trump, their testimonies are valid. Do you think he succeeded in making that case?

Well, it's hard to know, but he certainly has given the jury enough to 100% believe that. Right. I think that, first of all, Michael Cohen, I think, on the stand, did not act irrationally or unreasonably or didn't lose his temper. He was very, even the entire time, very matter of fact. And Steinglass has a pile of evidence to support what Michael Cohen is saying.

So is Michael Cohen lying about this and making this whole thing up and that he did this all on his own, or are all of these people, many of whom are loyal to Trump, simply telling the truth about what happened? And that's, so that's you know, Steinglass has a lot of evidence in this corner. You know, Adam, it's really hard for me to imagine any twelve people from Manhattan who did not know a whole lot about Donald Trump going into this trial. I mean, he is a former president. Even before that, he was a public figure and he's currently running for the presidency.

Juana Summers
Did Judge Juan Marshawn think about this jury, these twelve people, any differently because Trump was the defendant? Well, I think Marshawn was kind of in an impossible situation. Right? Because the idea of finding twelve people who don't have an opinion about Donald Trump, it's just impossible. It's not going to happen.

Donald Trump
Right? You can be looking for years and not find twelve people who haven't heard of Donald Trump. So merchant decided early on that he was going to be satisfied if a juror told him that they could be fair and impartial and weigh and just base their verdict on what happened in the courtroom. And Marshawn, the twelve people in that box satisfied Judge Marshawn that that was the case. But, you know, that process went really quickly.

And, you know, it's hard to know what the jury thinks of the facts so far because when everyone has this idea about Donald Trump and everyone has a perspective, it's very difficult to look at the evidence, not through that lens. Right. So I wonder if they just asked the jury pulled the jury before the evidence even started coming in, whether or not that would be the same verdict as they were going to get in a couple of days. We're going to have to leave it there. That was Adam Schlawhett.

Juana Summers
He's a jury expert and the director of the Brendan Moore trial Advocacy center at Fordham University Law School. Thank you. Thank you. This episode was produced by Janaki Mehta. It was edited by Courtney Dorning.

Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun. And in case you haven't heard, consider this is now also a newsletter. Just like on the podcast, we'll help you break down a major story of the day, but you'll also get to know our producers and hosts, and we'll share some moments of joy from the ALL THIngs considered team. You can sign up@npr.org. consider this newsletter.

It's consider this from NPR. I'm Juana Summers. On this week's episode of Wild Card, poet laureate Ada Limone tells us how to give yourself a little grace. The nice thing about being in my mid to late forties, yeah, I forgive myself all the time. Join me, Rachel Martin, for NPR's new podcast, Wildcard.

Rachel Martin
The game where cards control the conversation.

No name provided
This message comes from NPR sponsor Viori, a new perspective on performance apparel clothing designed with premium fabrics built to move in styled for life. For 20% off your first purchase, go to viori.com npr. Support for NPR and the following message come from Washington Wise. Decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day, but what policy changes should investors be watching? Washington Wise is an original podcast for investors from Charles Schwab that unpacks the stories making news in Washington and how it may affect your finances and portfolio.

Listen@schwab.com. washingtonwise.