JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
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.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)
MICHEL MARTIN: For the first time in American history, a former president is going on trial as a criminal defendant.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)
AILSA CHANG: 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.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED NPR BROADCAST)
ANDREA BERNSTEIN: 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.
SUMMERS: The 12 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.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
DONALD TRUMP: This is really a concerted witch hunt - very simple. Everything you heard in there - this is a witch hunt.
SUMMERS: 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.
HARRY LITMAN: The most important thing is being able to observe the jury, and I did that really as intently as I could.
SUMMERS: Former deputy assistant attorney general Harry Litman has been a first-person observer over the course of Trump's trial.
LITMAN: They're a pretty fastidious bunch, kind of close to the vest. They're aware, I think, of the gravity of the case.
SUMMERS: CONSIDER THIS - Donald Trump may be facing the important week of his landmark hush money trial as 12 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?
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
SUMMERS: From NPR, I'm Juana Summers.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
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, 12 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 Shlahet has been following the case. He is a jury expert and a professor at Fordham Law School in New York. He joins me now.
ADAM SHLAHET: Hello. Nice to be here. Thank you.
SUMMERS: Thanks. So, Adam, I will 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.
SHLAHET: Yeah. I think there's two scenarios. 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 and it seems like Blanche did a little mixture of both.
SUMMERS: Say more about that.
SHLAHET: Yeah. I think he tried to focus the case on Michael Cohen, but unfortunately, the defense - and it's just 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.
SUMMERS: 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 Merchan apparently had a pretty strong reaction to that statement. Can you explain why?
SHLAHET: 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's going to be. They're not supposed to be considering what the sentence might be. They're 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 him to prison - right? - 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.
SUMMERS: OK. Switching gears here, I want to talk about the prosecution a bit. Broadly speaking, how would you characterize their tactics in these closing arguments?
SHLAHET: Well, 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 5, which is unusual, and...
SUMMERS: Yeah.
SHLAHET: ...They're probably a little exhausted. 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.
SUMMERS: 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?
SHLAHET: 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, you know, Steinglass has a pile of evidence to support what Michael Cohen is saying. So, you know, 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 his corner.
SUMMERS: You know, Adam, it's really hard for me to imagine any 12 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. Did Judge Juan Merchan think about this jury, these 12 people, any differently because Trump was the defendant?
SHLAHET: Well, I think Merchan was kind of in an impossible situation - right? - because the idea of finding 12 people who don't have an opinion about Donald Trump is just impossible. It's not going to happen, right? You can be looking for years and not find 12 people who haven't heard of Donald Trump. So Merchan 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 Merchan - the 12 people in that box, satisfied Judge Merchan 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...
SUMMERS: Right.
SHLAHET: ...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 had just asked the jury - polled the jury before the evidence even started coming in, whether or not that would be the same verdict as we're going to get in a couple of days.
SUMMERS: We're going to have to leave it there. That was Adam Shlahet. He's a jury expert and the director of the Brendan Moore Trial Advocacy Center at Fordham University Law School. Thank you.
SHLAHET: Thank you.
SUMMERS: This episode was produced by Jonaki 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 at npr.org/considerthisnewsletter.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
SUMMERS: It's CONSIDER THIS FROM NPR. I'm Juana Summers.
Copyright © 2024 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.