There is a verdict in the case that has made Donald Trump the first former U.S. president to be charged in a criminal matter while still serving in the public eye. The decision arrives just over five months before the presidential election, where Trump remains the de facto Republican nominee and is expected to shake up American politics in ways unseen before.
After nearly 12 hours of deliberation on Wednesday, the twelve New York jurors, seven men and five women, informed Judge Juan Merchan that they had reached a unanimous verdict. The decision would be announced immediately. Trump and the nation held its breath as the moment approached.
The Case
The former president is charged in this case, one of four criminal matters he faces and perhaps the only one likely to be resolved before Election Day. He faces 34 counts of falsifying records. The charges stem from payments to Stormy Daniels to silence an alleged sexual encounter between them a decade earlier. Prosecutors linked the falsifications to alleged violations of state and federal campaign finance laws and related accounting practices.
The potential maximum sentence, if convicted on all charges or on any subset, would be four years in prison for each count. It is understood that Judge Merchan would likely allow the sentences to run concurrently rather than consecutively, reducing total time behind bars.
Given that Trump has no prior criminal history and that the offenses are nonviolent accounting-related offenses, along with unusual political circumstances surrounding the case, the judge could decide not to send Trump to prison, despite his age of 77.
A conviction would be subject to appeal. Yet the outcome would place Trump in history as the first presidential candidate from one of the two major parties to be a criminally convicted figure, and possibly the first president convicted of a criminal offense, a scenario that could not be forgiven if he ever returned to the White House in a future term.
Silence in the Hall, Clamor Online
The moment carried enormous significance at the intersection of law and politics. The gravity of proceedings inside the Manhattan courthouse was palpable on Wednesday.
Unlike the six weeks of pretrial activity, Trump did not issue a statement to reporters in the hallway before entering the courtroom. He did salute the cameras with a thumbs-up as the session began, but did not address the press otherwise.
When the jurors began their deliberations, Trump would speak to the cameras, repeating attacks against the judge and declaring that no one could win against these charges. He claimed, without evidence, that the trial was rigged and publicly attacked the process on his social platform, Truth Social, describing the proceeding as a judicial farce and reiterating his stance that President Biden is pursuing what he calls a political witch hunt. He asserted that the only party to commit a crime in the matter was Michael Cohen, his former attorney, who testified and admitted to misappropriating funds. The former president also criticized Cohen, continuing to raise concerns about confidentiality orders and press restrictions that have limited certain statements during the proceedings.
Political Impact
A verdict of not guilty would likely be framed by Trump as vindication, while a guilty verdict on all or some charges would be portrayed as confirmation of what his supporters call a political persecution, possibly fueling a broader rallying cry for his base and inspiring further online and public discourse about the case.
The verdict, regardless of the outcome, could influence the November vote among key swing voters. Polls in pivotal states conducted earlier in the year by Bloomberg and Morning Consult suggested that a majority of voters in those states would not support Trump if convicted of a crime. The political calculus remains volatile as campaigns and party lines shift in real time.
The Jury’s Path
Before heading to deliberations, the jury received a comprehensive briefing from Judge Merchan, including a detailed tour through the laws and charges involved in the case. This step was crucial in a complex matter that involved allegations of false accounting tied to potential secondary crimes that prosecutors argued required the jury to consider Trump’s intent rather than mere testimony from one witness alone.
The judge reminded the jurors to set aside any preconceived opinions about the defendant and not to let Trump’s decision not to testify in his own defense influence their verdict. He also explained that the jury could rely on witness testimony beyond Michael Cohen, provided other witnesses and corroborating evidence supported what Cohen had said.
The instructions underscored that a conviction could be based on the credibility of multiple witnesses and the overall evidentiary record, not solely on the testimony of Cohen. This careful framing was designed to guide jurors through a nuanced assessment of intent and the alleged financial misstatements behind the charges.
As deliberations concluded, the jurors faced a challenging task in a high-profile case that has drawn intense public interest and global scrutiny. The outcome remains a defining moment for the country and its political landscape, with repercussions that could reverberate through elections and constitutional debates for years to come.
At stake is not only legal accountability but also the broader question of how political figures navigate accountability in a deeply polarized era. The case highlights tensions between legal process, media engagement, and the expectations of the voting public in a democracy that prizes both rule of law and the free flow of information.