Former federal prosecutors break down Trump’s trial and historic conviction

Read the Full Transcript

• Amna Nawaz:

  Well, for more on the verdict and the legal fallout, we're joined now by two former federal prosecutors who have been following the trial, Jessica Roth of Cardozo School of Law in New York and Renato Mariotti, an attorney in Chicago.

  Good to see you both.

  And I just want to start with each of you in turn, I know we have talked about this before, just to get your brief reaction to the historic news that we have today of the first former president now convicted of a felony.

  Jessica, why don't you begin?

  Jessica Roth, Yeshiva University Cardozo School of Law: It is an extraordinary day.

  This was the first trial of a former president charged with crimes, and, therefore, it is the first conviction of a former president charged with crimes.

  I thought that the jury's deliberations, the speed with which the jury returned this unanimous verdict on all 34 counts, spoke to how they really didn't think this was a difficult case. They asked for testimony and for jury instructions to be read back to them, as William was saying, that highlighted that they essentially had no trouble finding that these records were false.

  And what they were interested in was finding out if these records were falsifying a conspiracy, intended to further and conceal a conspiracy to promote Trump's candidacy for office. That's what David Pecker's testimony went to most clearly. And David Pecker's testimony corroborated Michael Cohen's account of essentially how this conspiracy was launched.

  So I thought it was very telling that they asked for Pecker's testimony and that they asked for the jury instruction about accomplice liability. That is the mechanism that holds Donald Trump accountable for the falsification of business records, even if it was done through the hand of other people.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Renato, what about you? What stands out to you on this day?

• Renato Mariotti, Former Federal Prosecutor:

  Well, first of all, I should just say I think it is a remarkable moment.

  And it really, I think, is a day in which the criminal justice system in the state of New York worked. Despite how difficult this was, we did have a completed trial from beginning to end. The judge's rulings were within the zone of what I would expect a judge to rule.

  And, ultimately, the jury stayed together. And we had a full jury here and they rendered a verdict at the end.

  Regarding the verdict itself, I actually think it was a case that was very winnable for the defense. But they ended up losing this case because they adopted their client's strategy. I mean, Trump likes to deny everything and attack everyone. And that's what they did here.

  They denied the fact of an encounter between Trump and Stormy Daniels. They denied the hush money scheme itself. They claimed that all this money was actually payment for legal services. And they really didn't focus the jury on the very technical legal defenses that they had, instead mounting this sort of attack-all-things defense that may work in a rally or on a political program, but does not work in a Manhattan courtroom.

• Geoff Bennett:

  Jessica, tell us more about the judge in this case, Judge Juan Merchan. He served on the bench for some 17 years, but this is by far the most high-profile case to ever cross his courtroom.

  Tell us about him and how he's handled himself during this case.

• Jessica Roth:

  I thought he handled himself remarkably well, despite being tested during the course of this case.

  Mr. Trump was attacking not only the judge, but the judge's daughter, which led to one aspect of the gag order, which was to preclude Donald Trump from speaking about the judge's family members. And despite those provocations, the judge remained, I thought, remarkably calm on the bench, even-handed in his rulings, and really ran the courtroom in such a way that there were no disruptions.

  There was one defense witness called, Mr. Costello, who was clearly disrespectful to the judge, and the judge shut that down immediately, but, notably, did that outside the presence of the jury, so that he would not be in any way communicating to the jury his views — view about this witness.

  So I thought he really did a remarkable job controlling the courtroom, maintaining order, and also running things very efficiently. This trial concluded far sooner than many of us anticipated it would.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Renato, walk us through what happens next logistically, at least.

  We're talking about a former president who's under Secret Service protection. After a conviction like this, what normally happens? What do we expect to happen in this case?

• Renato Mariotti:

  Well, he is out on bond. He is not imprisoned. There will be a sentencing. That date has been set, July 11, by the judge. That is, of course, in the midst of the presidential election.

  The judge will have that sentencing in courtroom — in the courtroom, and Donald Trump will need to be there in court again. I do not expect that the former president will be sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment. I would be very surprised if that's the case, given the sort of punishments that have been doled out for the same charge in Manhattan in the past.

  But, nonetheless, I believe he will receive some punishment as a sentence, and it remains to be seen what exactly that is. It could range from anything from house arrest to something much less than that.

• Geoff Bennett:

  And, Jessica, in the couple of minutes that remain, Donald Trump's legal team can appeal this verdict. One imagines they will appeal it.

  Did anything happen over the course of this trial that would work to Donald Trump's advantage on appeal?

• Jessica Roth:

  There are a number of bases on which I'm sure he will assert an appeal, including some of the evidence that came in, most notably, some of the details that Stormy Daniels testified about with respect to their encounter.

  That might be the basis for an appeal, but I don't think that it would prevail. I think the judge actually made sure that overly prejudicial testimony did not come in. And, moreover, Trump didn't object in a timely way to much of that.

  I think there are some interesting legal questions that could provide the basis for appeal, including the use of this New York conspiracy election statute incorporating by reference other unlawful means. That is something that I'm sure will be tested on appeal and that I'm sure appellate judges would take seriously.

• Amna Nawaz:

  Renato, what about you? Do you agree with that when it comes to a potential appeal ahead and how it could play out?

• Renato Mariotti:

  I think that's right.

  I do think that there was a number of issues, particularly the judge's ruling regarding some pretrial motions, as well as his ruling regarding the jury — or his jury instructions that he gave regarding the agreement of the jury as to the unlawful means by which the election was sought to be influenced in the underlying campaign finance crime that was allegedly law — or now, I should say, proven to have been concealed here.

  I do think that there is — there are some issues there that there could be room for disagreement and you could see some potential merit on appeal. That said, I have to think that prosecutors are very pleased right now, because, regardless of what happens on appeal, they did prevail at trial.

• Amna Nawaz:

  That is Renato Mariotti and Jessica Roth joining us tonight.

  Thank you to you both. We appreciate your time.

• Jessica Roth:

  Thank you.