Jonathan Turley argues that the Trump case should result in a verdict of “not guilty”

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote on Monday that in the business records case in New York City, former President Donald Trump should be found “not guilty” as the closing arguments took place.

Turley pointed out that the defense lawyers for Trump are in a unique position as the prosecutors have not clearly stated the crimes they are accusing Trump of committing by the end of the trial. Turley mentioned this in an opinion column for the New York Post.

Judge [Juan] Merchan has stated that the jury does not need to agree on the precise crime Trump is being accused of, and the jury has not been provided substantial details about these alleged crimes. Turley also highlighted that a legal expert who could have shown that there was no federal election violation was denied the opportunity to testify.

In analyzing the prosecution’s case, Turley compared it to a three-legged stool where each leg represents falsification of records, a secondary crime, and criminal intent. He argued that the defense has successfully disputed these points by showing that the payment labeling system was outdated, there is no evidence of a secondary crime, and there is no clear evidence of criminal intent to violate federal election laws.

Turley concluded that the prosecution’s case is weak and lacks solid evidence to convict Trump. He emphasized the importance of standing on a firm foundation when accusing individuals of crimes without concrete evidence. Turley questioned the validity of a conviction based on such a weak case in the Manhattan courtroom.