After a long day of closing arguments in New York, two contrasting narratives about the same story converge on one outcome: the jury now holds Donald Trump’s fate. Facing 34 charges in a case rooted in a payment to silence Stormy Daniels, and alleged to have been concealed with false records to influence the 2016 election, the 77-year-old former president could become the first former U.S. president convicted on criminal charges.
The potential conviction of the man who also serves as the de facto Republican nominee for the November presidential race against Joe Biden would carry a maximum sentence of four years in prison, even though actual incarceration is not mandatory. This development would propel the United States into uncharted political and legal territory.
These are the five key elements detailing how the process will unfold from here and the latest closing arguments from both the defense and the prosecution as they seek to persuade the seven men and five women who will render a decision in the only criminal case among Trump’s four charges that could be resolved before Election Day.
Instructions and deliberation
On Wednesday, Judge Juan Merchan gave the jury final instructions, outlining the legal map for a case whose narrative may be straightforward while the legal framework remains intricate. With those directions delivered, deliberations began. The jurors could reach a verdict within hours, gathering later into the evening, or it might take days or even weeks.
A verdict must be unanimous. It could result in an acquittal, a finding of guilt on all charges, or guilt on only some counts. Jurors must not consider potential penalties Trump might face if found guilty.
There is also the possibility that the jury cannot reach unanimity, in which case the case would be declared a mistrial, forcing prosecutors to restart the process and potentially delaying resolution before November.
The defense and Cohen
The defense team has leaned on reasonable doubt as the core tactic, led by Todd Blanche, Trump’s primary attorney. In a three-hour closing argument, the defense focused on Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer who arranged a $130,000 payment to Daniels to suppress her public account of an alleged encounter with Trump. The reimbursement of $420,000 covered that payment and other related expenses, including Cohen’s admission of skirting taxes and misappropriating funds.
Cohen is portrayed by the defense as the single witness tying Trump to the decision to approve the payment and to the falsified accounting entries. Blanche repeatedly called Cohen the “embodiment of reasonable doubt” and referred to him as the era’s most prolific fabricator.
“One cannot convict someone based solely on Michael Cohen’s word,” the attorney argued, also accusing Daniels of attempting extortion.
The prosecution and Cohen
Joshua Steinglass, the prosecutor who delivered the closing arguments, acknowledged the credibility challenges of his star witness, noting that the defense strategy had once claimed they did not book their witness in a conventional way. Nevertheless, the prosecution reminded jurors that the corroborating evidence and other testimonies across six weeks align with Cohen’s account, and that Trump himself had hired Cohen because of a willingness to bend the truth in his name.
The prosecutor emphasized why Cohen sometimes paid Daniels out of pocket, countering the defense’s narrative of a private arrangement. He also pointed to Cohen’s longstanding proximity to Trump, arguing that the defendant, known for micromanaging every detail of his businesses and campaigns, benefited from the scheme because he was the candidate who sought victory.
Conspiracy and elections
The central debate between the defense and prosecution concerns whether the alleged scheme aimed to influence the 2016 election that Hillary Clinton ultimately contested. The defense maintains there was no illegal act. One attorney asserted that every campaign in the country involves some form of conspiracy and that a crime would have required illegal methods.
The prosecution contends there was “conspiracy and cover-up” and that the payments exceeded permissible campaign finance limits. The prosecutor tied Daniels’ payment to other actions, including a pact with a tabloid editor to bury other stories about Trump, such as a claimed affair with Playboy model Karen McDougal. He argued the move undermined democracy and could have influenced the election outcome.
The prosecutor also noted a resurfaced Access Hollywood clip in which Trump boasted about his ability to act without consequence due to his fame. He argued that the remark likely damaged Trump with voters, especially women, and that Trump may have understood the political cost of such behavior.
While the defense claimed there is not a shred of evidence against Trump, the prosecution argued there is substantial evidence and corroboration from roughly 20 witnesses, including Trump allies. The key for the prosecutor was the contrast between the motive to influence the election and the concrete accounting entries that established the means of the alleged misconduct.
Dramatization
The closing arguments featured not only spoken testimony but also dramatic elements such as PowerPoint slides, audio clips of recorded conversations, on-screen exhibits, and even a “top 10” list prepared by the defense as an implausible summary of Trump. The standout moment, according to witnesses, was a dramatized portrayal by the prosecutor, Joshua Steinglass.
At the core was a one-and-a-half minute phone call Cohen said he had with Trump in October 2016 about the Daniels payment. The defense argued that it was impossible for Cohen to be speaking with both Trump and his security detail in that moment. Yet the prosecution contended, by staging a simulated exchange with appropriate pauses, that there was sufficient time to cover both issues.
The case thus rests on a balance between the alleged intent to sway an election and the concrete accounting records that could prove the conduct occurred. The jury’s task is to weigh credibility, context, and the broader legal standards that apply in these charges. The road ahead remains uncertain, with the outcome hinging on the jurors’ assessment of motive, truthfulness, and the sufficiency of the documentary trail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions amounted to criminal conduct.