Five key moments of the Trump case and what might come next
On a Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, which honors United States military members who died in service, the criminal case against Donald Trump over a six year old payment to Stormy Daniels is entering its final stretch. The payment of 130000 dollars was made before the 2016 elections to silence Daniels, who described a purported encounter with Trump years earlier.
With the defense and prosecution delivering their final arguments, the jury is expected to receive the judge details and instructions in the days ahead, after which deliberations will begin under the guidance of Judge Juan Merchan.
Seven men and five women from New York will determine whether Trump is guilty or innocent on the 34 charged counts, with a unanimous verdict the goal for this historically public case against a former president who has been charged with criminal conduct in the state for the first time in U.S. history.
The outcome carries enormous legal and political weight as Trump mounts a campaign to be the Republican nominee for the 2024 presidential race against Joe Biden, making the process a centerpiece of national political life while the pageant of legal arguments unfolds.
These are five essential aspects to understand what has happened so far and what could unfold next.
1. The prosecution case
Over six weeks in room 1530 of the New York County Supreme Court, twenty two witnesses testified, with twenty of them called by the New York County district attorney who brings the case. The testimony outlined efforts to plant favorable media narratives or to bury those that could harm the candidate as the campaign matured. The testimony also revisited a widely publicized leaked video from a past event where Trump boasted of sexual behaviors, and Daniels testified in detail about the encounter that is central to the charges. Accounts from accountants, editors, and former Trump aides painted a portrait of a manager who micromanaged and insisted on controlling every cent in the business empire before any action was taken.
The prosecution built its central narrative around Michael Cohen, a longtime attorney and fixer who arranged the Daniels payment and later sought reimbursement through entries that prosecutors described as false on the company accounts. Cohen testified to his role and the underlying intention behind the payment, portraying it as part of a broader plan to influence the political climate during an election year.
Only Cohen directly linked Trump to authorizing the payment and the decision to keep the payment hidden. Prosecutors argued those actions had the aim of interfering with the election and that what happened was more than a mere bookkeeping irregularity.
2. The defense case
Trump’s legal team chose not to have him testify, focusing instead on debunking the prosecution narrative and undermining the credibility of Daniels and especially Cohen. During the cross examination of Cohen, the defense pressed him on inconsistencies and alleged personal motives, seeking to depict him as acting independently to ascend within the Trump orbit and driven by a sense of grievance after his own fall from favor.
For three days, the defense challenged Cohen’s testimony and suggested that the alleged misconduct did not prove a broader conspiracy or a criminal violation. The strategy aimed to show that Cohen had incentives to distort facts and that his recollections may have been influenced by his own legal exposure.
3. The legal issue at stake
Analysts expect the two sides to repeat their core theories in the final arguments, delivering the last word before the jury weighs the verdict. A central legal question concerns how prosecutors elevated the charges from ordinary bookkeeping to possible criminal violations tied to election law and campaign finance. The defense contends that this legal line is misapplied and that advancing such a theory would require proving a specific intent that the prosecution struggles to demonstrate.
To support its theory, the prosecution argues that the state election law prohibits any conspiracy meant to influence an election by illegal means and that the payment could be seen as a bribery of the political process. Prosecutors also asserted that the charges implicate federal campaign finance concerns, arguing that the intent to influence the election matters even if the underlying offense is different. The jury will be asked to consider whether these elements existed and whether a legal intent was present beyond the acts themselves.
This complexity makes the judge’s instructions crucial. The jurors need clear guidance on how to interpret intent, conspiracy, and the relationship between the financial records and electoral consequences as they deliberate.
4. The big unknown
The jury could reach a verdict within hours or require days of deliberation. The six weeks of proceedings have shown a mix of careful attention and unpredictable reactions. Jurors will decide how much credibility to assign to witnesses, how the presence of Trump in the courtroom affected testimonies, and how the large entourage surrounding him influenced perceptions of the case. The trial also featured extended moments of quiet observation from Trump, including long pauses that caught public attention.
Even with two jurors being alternates, deliberations could be complicated by the intricacies of criminal law and the specifics of the charges. It would not be surprising if jurors posed technical questions about the law during their discussion, which could shape the pace and direction of the deliberations.
If the jury fails to reach a unanimous verdict, the judge could declare a mistrial, allowing prosecutors to pursue a new trial. If a guilty verdict occurs, the judge would determine the sentence, which could reach several years in prison, though the likelihood of a prison term for an elderly defendant facing multiple legal challenges remains uncertain given prevailing political considerations and the broader context of the cases. A guilty finding would typically be subject to appeal, potentially delaying any sentence further. Many observers doubt that Trump would serve time before the November elections, especially given the other pending cases he faces and the overall judicial landscape.
5. The broader impact
Beyond the courtroom, the case has dominated political life in the United States. Trump has used the process to raise funds and consolidate support among his base, while public appearances near the courthouse and media attention have underscored his continued influence within the Republican Party. Outside the courtroom, public opinion has shown a wide range of interest levels, with some polls indicating only modest momentum or attention from the electorate and a general sense of polarization around the issue.
Analysts have noted that the dispute between a party aligned base and opponents shapes how each side perceives the trial and its significance. A recent column by major media outlets reflected on the broader implications of a case that could redefine accountability in American politics and how voters may weigh such legal matters against long standing political narratives.
In the end, the trial’s outcome will be weighed in a political context as much as a legal one, with the November elections likely to frame much of how the verdict will be interpreted in public life. The verdict, the possible appeals, and the political interpretations that follow will all contribute to a moment that many observers see as a turning point in how political figures are scrutinized under the law. Cited sources include court records and consensus reporting from major national outlets.