NEW YORK — The jury considering the charges against former President Trump in his secret trial will have to peel back several layers as they deliberate whether he is guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records.
The Manhattan district attorney’s office’s allegation is that Trump illegally covered up a secret payment that his then-fixer, Michael Cohen, made to porn actress Stormy Daniels in the weeks before the 2016 election to ensure her silence about an alleged affair.
The case is so complicated that jurors sent a note Wednesday, just hours after deliberations began, asking the judge to repeat his legal instructions.
To reach a guilty verdict, jurors will have to go through several steps to reach the first criminal conviction of a former US president.
If all jurors agree that one of the steps was not proven, they must return a not guilty verdict. If they cannot reach an agreement, the trial will end with a hung jury.
Here’s what needs to happen, step by step.
Did Trump cause false entries in business records?
The first thing the jury must determine is whether Trump caused false business records related to hush money payments.
Each of the 34 charges Trump faces for falsifying business records corresponds to a document generated when Trump later allegedly reimbursed Cohen for hush money to Daniels. Trump denies the affair.
The counts fall into three groups: 11 invoices Cohen presented to Trump, 11 checks sent back to Cohen, and 12 ledger entries reflecting those transactions.
Prosecutors say Trump falsely recorded the reimbursements to Cohen as a legal expense to cover up the silent payment.
The former president’s lawyers, in turn, say the records were true because the payments were for Cohen’s services as the president’s personal lawyer.
Even if they were false, Trump maintained a degree of separation from his subordinates, the defense argues, suggesting that Cohen became dishonest in order to impress his boss.
To reach a guilty verdict, jurors will have to decide that the records are false and that Trump was responsible for them.
Did Trump intend to defraud?
Even if the jury decides that the records were false and that Trump caused them to be enrolled, they must also find that he intended to defraud in order to reach a guilty verdict.
“A person acts with the intent to defraud when his conscious aim or purpose is to do so,” Merchan told the jury.
“To prove intent to defraud, the People do not need to prove that the defendant acted with the intent to defraud any specific person or entity. A general intention to defraud any person or entity is sufficient.”
Prosecutors say Trump defrauded the voting public by ensuring that the hush money payment to the porn star was part of a larger scheme to eliminate negative stories about Trump before Election Day to pave his way to the White House.
The defense argued that any efforts by Trump’s allies to crack down on bad press — and increase stories damaging to his opponents — could be attributed to running a presidential campaign.
Did Trump intend to commit, conceal or aid another crime?
Prosecutors are seeking the criminal version of the falsifying business records charge, which includes an additional requirement, often referred to as an “enhancement.”
To reach a felony conviction, jurors must conclude that the former president falsified the 34 records with the intent to commit, aid or conceal another crime.
“Under our law, although the people must prove intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal its commission, they need not prove that the other crime was in fact committed, aided or concealed,” Merchan told jurors in your speech. instructions.
Prosecutors accuse Trump of intending to violate a provision of New York election law that makes it a crime to conspire to “promote or impede the election of any person to public office by unlawful means.”
Did Trump conspire to promote his candidacy through “illegal means”?
The district attorney’s office presented the jury with three different “unlawful means” theories.
First, prosecutors noted violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which restricts corporate and individual contributions to federal political candidates.
In 2018, Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to violating FECA when he made the $130,000 silent payment to Daniels, exceeding the $2,700 individual contribution limit in effect at the time.
Prosecutors also highlighted how the parent company of the National Enquirer violated FECA’s ban on corporate contributions when it paid former Playboy model Karen McDougal $150,000 in hush money to remain silent about her salacious allegations against Trump, which he also denies .
Second, prosecutors argue that other business records were falsified. They point to paperwork generated when Cohen opened bank accounts under false pretenses and when he later transferred the hush money to Daniels’ lawyer. Prosecutors also cite 1099-MISC forms that the Trump Organization later issued to Cohen.
Third, prosecutors cite violations of tax law, arguing that the refunds to Cohen were miscategorized as income.
In instructing the jury, Merchan said jurors do not have to all agree that just one of the theories is valid. Instead, he said everyone must agree that one of the theories works, meaning some could agree with prosecutors’ first arguments, some with the second and some with the third.
“Although you must unanimously conclude that the defendant conspired to promote or impede the election of any person to public office by illegal means, you do not have to be unanimous as to what those illegal means were,” Merchan told the jury on Wednesday .
Trump and conservatives joined the instruction, insisting that the defendant is not receiving a fair trial since jurors could disagree on which of the three illegal means prosecutors proved.
Trump’s lawyers objected, but the judge agreed last week with prosecutors that the defense’s request amounted to rewriting the law.
“We understand that the defense is opposed to this, but there is well-established law in New York that a jury does not have to be unanimous on illegal means,” prosecutor Matthew Colangelo said in court last week as the parties debated the jury instructions.
Colangelo argued that establishing such a requirement would amount to rewriting the law based on what “the court would do in all other cases.”
“I agree,” replied the judge.
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
