As a seasoned criminal defense attorney, here are my thoughts on the case against Trump

Summarize this content in 2000 words in 6 paragraphs. 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. It was just over a year ago, on April 3, 2023, that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg announced a 34-count criminal indictment against former President Donald J. Trump. Now Trump’s trial is about to begin, with opening statements scheduled for Monday at 9:30 a.m. Joey Jackson – Jeremy Freeman/CNNTrump is accused of falsifying invoices and company books and sending refund checks to his then-attorney Michael Cohen, which prosecutors say was no such thing, but rather a refund to Cohen for a $130,000 payment that he made on behalf of Trump to former adult actress Stormy Daniels. Daniels was paid, they say, to keep her from challenging Trump in the run-up to the election, in order to hide their contacts and boost his election prospects. In New York State, falsifying company records is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to one year. jail. However, if it can be shown that the reason for the forgery was to commit another crime, as prosecutors say is the case here, it becomes a crime punishable by up to four years in prison. This means that prosecutors have two assignments. in their effort to secure a conviction against the former president. First, they must establish the fraudulent nature of the corporate documents underlying the alleged scheme. Second, they must show that Trump’s intent to falsify the data was related to the 2016 presidential election. That, in the simplest terms, is the prosecution’s case against the former president. It makes you wonder what’s going through the minds of the jurors – despite the statements they made during the jury selection process. Are they star struck? Intimidated? Biased for or against Trump? We won’t really know until the proceedings are over and the jury delivers their verdict. At that point, the judges may or may not choose to publicly explain their decision. Trump has said prosecutors have “no case” against him. We will soon know whether that is true. Prosecutors will most certainly take a very different position when opening statements are made. But each party will ensure that they tailor their opening arguments to the target group: the jury. They are the ones whose opinions matter most in this process. The court has constituted an eighteen-member panel consisting of twelve jurors and six alternates who are crucial as one or more of them could be called upon to intervene if any of the jurors were to act. need to be excused – for example if they have a personal emergency or just want to get things over with. The longer the process takes, the more likely this can happen. With regard to the primary jury panel of twelve people, I am struck by how many professionals took their seats. It includes two lawyers, a technical worker, a software engineer, financial professionals, a teacher and a salesperson. I think that is a group that will delve into facts, logic, documents and evidence. That could be a good thing for Trump, as they are unlikely to base their judgment on politics – his or hers. However, it could also work against him, as the jurors may well be unemotional, dispassionate and otherwise unconvinced by the defense. claims of prosecutorial unfairness, government overreach, or witch hunts. Opening statements are not evidence, but are intended to give a taste of what the evidence will show, and I expect they will come away with a convincing result. We can expect a logical presentation of the evidence they want to provide, consisting of ledgers, invoices, checks, text messages, emails, audio recordings and other documents. We can also expect them to distinguish between the message and the messenger. For example, Cohen is a convicted felon and perjurer, as many people know. Daniels has lived a life that some would find distasteful. Expect prosecutors to talk about that freely, as they did during jury selection. But they will also condition the jury by pointing out that jurors do not have to rely on the word of any witness. Prosecutors will instead ask the jury to focus on documentary evidence that corroborates and supports witnesses’ claims. This means that you can expect them to focus primarily on the documents that they say contain the hush money scheme. The witnesses are merely ‘messengers’ who underline facts already established by compelling hard evidence. Prosecutors will try to soften the sting of defense attacks on the credibility of their witnesses by arguing that the message itself — the evidence regarding Trump’s guilt — is unmistakable. The texts, emails and documents irrefutably prove his guilt, they will insist. As for Trump’s intent, prosecutors will note that it defies common sense and logic that he would have paid the hush money for any reason other than to hide it from voters. . Not only will they point to the timing of the payment, just days before the 2016 election, but they will almost certainly point to communications and statements at meetings saying the plan and its purpose were discussed. I don’t expect prosecutors to get into the weeds on Monday about what the evidence will show, but I do expect their review to be organized, focused and tied to a meticulous timeline of events, facts and participants. opening arguments are more of a wildcard full of challenges, but they have a few options. The first would be to commit to an actual defense. But what might that look like, and will it work? Team Trump could say that he is completely innocent and that the state’s case is built on a pack of lies with no factual basis. However, this would be risky. If the state can show that none of the Trump payments to his then-attorney Cohen were for any legal work and that no retainer agreement existed, why would Trump make any payments at all? The jury might find such a claim difficult to believe. Another defensive maneuver could be to adopt a strategy employed by former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who was prosecuted more than a decade ago for alleged federal campaign finance violations. Edwards successfully claimed at his trial that he concealed the birth of his love child, not to deceive voters, but to protect his wife and family. In Trump’s case, however, a similar defense would entail major risks. He would have to admit that he was guilty of falsifying company documents. That defense would have to admit that he is a criminal, even a low-level criminal, and would contradict the public statements he has made about the case. If he were to go that route, he would essentially be saying, yes, I did it. but my intention was to protect my marriage. It had nothing to do with the elections. Based on his defense, Trump would have already admitted to the entire underlying plan. That would allow prosecutors to shift the focus of their case from the alleged ruse he allegedly claims he was part of, to his motive: was it for his family, or to improve his chances of becoming president? But I simply don’t see Trump pleading guilty — even for relatively minor crimes. The other option the defense has in its opening argument is one that is used quite often and in many cases is the safest bet: Team Trump could simply choose to ask the jurors to keep an open mind throughout the case. By adopting this strategy, the defense would like to remind the jury that the standard for proving guilt – “beyond a reasonable doubt” – is a very high bar. Their next step would be to address the unsavory nature of the state’s witnesses and argue that they cannot be trusted. They might then turn to the discussion of how Trump should and should not be found guilty simply because of his politics and anyone’s disdain for him. What I most don’t expect as the trial gets underway is any commitment from the defense on whether Trump will testify. While he has publicly said he will, that will likely be a playing time decision. History is unfolding before us. Since the signing of the Declaration of Independence nearly 250 years ago, no president has ever been criminally prosecuted. That said, everyone is, or should be, considered equal under the law, and everyone has the presumption of innocence – even a former president. So here we are. Did Trump break the law? After Monday’s opening statements and after they have a chance to hear the unveiling of evidence at trial, the jury will decide. For more CNN news and newsletters, create an account at CNN.com