What to search for within the closing arguments within the Trump trial – from a law professor who teaches and studies them

After greater than 4 weeks often dirty witness statements, Accusations of lying and even a warning from Judge Juan M. Merchan to a witness not to present him more the side eyeLawyers within the hush money case involving former President Donald Trump are expected to make their closing arguments on May 28, 2024.

In a jury trial, opening statements are intended to supply the jury with a narrative framework to all of the little things of evidence and witness statements.

Closing arguments aren’t meant to easily repeat the testimony of all 22 witnesses or review the 200 or so pieces of evidence. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys must use closing arguments to clarify to the jury why the evidence is or shouldn’t be credible, why and the way the facts are or aren’t connected, and, most significantly, why their decision to acquit or convict is moral and just.

Keep it easy

As a I teach law students and practitionersThis moral message within the closing arguments was intended to check with themes that were already woven into the trial.

In this criminal case certainly one of 4 lawsuits filed against TrumpManhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charged the previous president with
34 counts of falsifying business records to acquire a payment of $130,000 to Porn actress Stormy Daniels as a part of an try to influence voters' knowledge of him ahead of the 2016 presidential election.

Trump pleaded not guilty and not attested.

For the prosecution, this moral message, as prosecutor Matthew Colangelo At the start of the trial, he said: “It was election fraud, plain and simple.”

For the defense, their closing argument should contain an equally direct statement, just like Trump defender Todd Blanche said: “President Trump is innocent. President Trump has committed no crimes. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office should never have brought this case to trial.”

Closing arguments serve at the very least one other purpose. They are designed to arm jurors with the arguments they need—either to silence naysayers or gently persuade doubters—within the event that the true fight breaks out within the jury room during deliberations. One option to do that is to take phrases from the judge's instructions to the jury, rewrite them in plain English, and make it seem to be they agree with the judge and the law.

Less is more

A primary goal of prosecutors and defense attorneys is to untangle all of the evidence and testimony. They must filter out the distracting details and principally tell the jury, “Now you know why that witness was important” or “The document doesn't lie – it shows you…”

Prosecutors on this case must concentrate on why Trump was involved within the alleged conspiracy and what he knew concerning the alleged payments.

In my 45 years of experience, the smart way is to start closing arguments with the large picture: “What did we have to prove?” after which respond in a series of bullet points explaining how they proved their case beyond an inexpensive doubt.

For this purpose, a limited and targeted use of evidence is best – not each piece of evidence. Less is more, including in relation to salacious details, adultery and Trump's own vulgar wordsThe jury just needs the reminder – they may remember the small print.

With key witnesses Michael Cohena lawyer and former fixer of Trump, it may very well be different. The prosecution cannot hide from the lies and mistakes that Trump's defense team drummed into the jury, so it’s as much as the prosecution to Cohen's failures.

Put simply, prosecutors must show that it doesn't matter how much Cohen has lied in his past if he has evidence to support his testimony on this case.

An inexpensive doubt?

The goal of the defense is to prove Trump's innocence and argue that there’s sufficient reasonable doubt within the prosecution's case.

This means which you can Cohen's lack of credibility and denies that against the law was committed. If anything, they might argue, these alleged crimes were merely accounting errors that Trump was unaware of.

However, if the defense paints the whole lot as lies, as Trump claims, it could find itself in a dead end. For example, if the jury believes Stormy Daniels was telling the reality when she claimed she had sex with Trump, Trump's denials could hurt his lawyer's defense strategy.

The defense faces one other difficult task: finding a balance between attacking Cohen and explaining why the statements made by Trump's attorney aren’t supported by the vast amount of evidence or by Trump's own words.

And the defense must determine what its goal is: a direct acquittal or a jury that can’t agree and can’t reach a unanimous decision?

If the latter is the case, there shall be a large emphasis on Cohen's failings and lack of evidence, within the hope that at the very least one juror will stand firm and say, “That's just not enough.”

However, the prosecutors have the last word in these closing arguments. Since they should prove their case beyond an inexpensive doubt, they may make their closing arguments last and know what to reply to.