NEW YORK — A Manhattan jury began deliberating in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial Wednesday after the judge instructed them on the laws that must guide whether they label the presumptive GOP nominee a felon.
The panel of seven men and five women will decide if Mr. Trump becomes the first former president to be convicted of a crime. A verdict in the campaign may come at any time, making it a tense and pivotal moment in U.S. history.
“You are the judges of the fact, and you are responsible for deciding if the defendant is guilty or not guilty,” state Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan told jurors.
Prosecutors allege Mr. Trump paid $130,000 in hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels near the 2016 election and criminally concealed a campaign-related effort by logging a series of reimbursement checks to his lawyer, Michael Cohen, as payment for legal expenses.
Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg entered a large pile of evidence in the case, so deliberations may take a long time even if jurors from the liberal stronghold of New York are eager to convict.
Some jurors might find the defense proved reasonable doubt and push for acquittal, or induce a hung jury, prolonging the process beyond the weekend.
SEE ALSO: Trump: Even Mother Teresa couldn’t beat these ‘rigged’ charges
Judge Merchan instructed jurors on the law for roughly an hour.
The jury was very attentive and Mr. Trump sat quietly at the defense table in a navy suit and golden-yellow tie. It was a strict and sober process, with no one allowed to enter or leave the courtroom as the judge described the burden of proof on the prosecution, how to draw inferences and other aspects of the law.
The judge said because Mr. Cohen is considered an “accomplice” in this case, his testimony must be corroborated by other evidence to convict Mr. Trump.
He also said jurors should not hold Mr. Trump’s decision not to testify against him, since the defense doesn’t have to prove anything. The verdict must be unanimous.
The judge did not, however, instruct jurors that paying hush money is not a crime. Mr. Trump’s lawyers wanted the court to make that clear but Judge Merchan said the point was raised in testimony and attorney arguments, and the prosecution never contested it.
“I think to take it to the next level and actually give an instruction from the bench, I think is taking it too far and I don’t think it’s necessary,” the judge said at the jury-charging conference earlier in the trial.
SEE ALSO: Jurors in Trump’s hush money trial get tech tutorial to review piles of evidence
Mr. Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors charged him at the felony level, meaning they must prove the intent to defraud “includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.”
The secondary, or object, crime hadn’t been spelled out during the trial but prosecutors frequently alleged Mr. Trump was trying to protect his election chances.
Judge Merchan said the prosecutors believe the second crime was a violation of a New York election statute that prohibits any two or more persons from conspiring to promote or prevent the election of a person by unlawful means.
In a boon for prosecutors, the judge said under the law, jurors “need not prove that the other crime was committed, aided or concealed,” or be unanimous in what “unlawful means” were used.
Prosecutors say the unlawful means may include: violations of certain federal limits on campaign contributions, which in the relevant years were capped at $2,700; the falsification of other business records, including bank documents related to Mr. Cohen’s creation of a limited liability company; or a violation of tax laws.
The judge retraced the documents tied to the criminal counts, including invoices and checks for Mr. Cohen and entries in ledgers for the Trump Organization and its revocable trust.
He explained the concept of accessorial liability since no one alleges Mr. Trump entered fraudulent records himself. The judge said the jury must find solicited, requested or commanded other people to engage in the unlawful conduct.
Judge Merchan gave “limiting instructions” around some of the evidence. He said Mr. Cohen’s plea to crimes and a Federal Elections Commission probe into Mr. Cohen should be used to provide context but not to judge Mr. Trump. He gave a similar instruction around a non-prosecution agreement given to former tabloid executive David Pecker, saying it should only provide context and aid their assessment of credibility.
If convicted, Mr. Trump faces up to four years in prison for each count.
He is unlikely to do hard time, given he would be a first-time, nonviolent offender. There are logistical complications around imprisoning a former president with Secret Service protection, which the judge might take into consideration if he needs to sentence Mr. Trump.
The sentence could involve probation or a fine. Mr. Trump can still run for president if convicted since the Constitution only sets guardrails around age and citizenship status for candidates.
During the trial, prosecutors said Mr. Cohen paid off Ms. Daniels when she shopped a story about a 2006 sexual encounter with Mr. Trump at Lake Tahoe.
Mr. Trump wanted to bury the story because his campaign was under duress from the leak of “Access Hollywood” audio in which he spoke crudely about women, according to prosecutors.
They alleged that efforts to make Mr. Cohen whole in 2017 turned criminal when Mr. Trump and his orbit logged a series of checks as payment for legal services, shrouding the aim to reimburse Mr. Cohen for the Daniels payment.
The defense said Mr. Cohen paid Ms. Daniels on his own to earn kudos from Mr. Trump down the road, and that Mr. Trump thought he was signing checks for Mr. Cohen’s legal services while he was running the country from the White House.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Todd Blanche, said nondisclosure payments are legal and that prosecutors proved Mr. Trump was trying to win the 2016 election but fell far short of demonstrating a criminal plot. He also pointed to deep credibility issues around Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Trump says the case is a charade designed to thwart his campaign against President Biden, noting prosecutors sat on the case for years before bringing an indictment. He says he did nothing wrong and followed accepted practices when entering the nondisclosure agreements described at trial.
“NDAs ARE TOTALLY LEGAL AND ACCEPTED!” he wrote on Truth Social before heading to court Wednesday.
Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump are running neck and neck ahead of the November election. A conviction could turn off enough undecided voters in swing states and impact the outcome.
• Tom Howell Jr. can be reached at thowell@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.