Jonathan Turley argues that the Trump case should result in a ‘not guilty’ verdict.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, argued on Monday that former President Donald Trump should be considered “not guilty” in the business records case in New York City as closing arguments approached.

Turley pointed out that defense lawyers for Trump are in a peculiar position as the prosecutors have not clearly outlined the crimes Trump is being accused of. Even after weeks of trial, the specific allegations against Trump remain unclear, he wrote in an opinion column for the New York Post.

According to Turley, Judge Juan Merchan ruled that the jury does not need to agree on the specific crime. The prosecution’s case hinges on falsification of records, a secondary crime, and criminal intent. However, Turley argued that there is lack of substantial evidence for these claims.

Defense witnesses have testified that the payment labeling system was outdated and Trump may not have been aware of how the payments were categorized. Turley also mentioned that there is no clear secondary crime in the case and the prosecution’s reliance on Michael Cohen’s testimony to prove criminal intent is problematic.

Ultimately, Turley concluded that the prosecution’s case is like a three-legged stool, with each leg representing a different aspect of the alleged crimes. However, with weak evidence and lack of clarity, the stool is wobbly and unreliable.

In the end, Turley emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair trial and clear evidence before convicting someone, as it affects the liberty and rights of individuals. He warned about the consequences of allowing convictions without proper evidence or clarity in the legal process.