Judge's jury instructions

Most of the jury instructions are garden variety with the exception of calling Michael Cohen an accomplice.

The whole accomplice thing is creating a buzz, however, the underlying issue here is that the judge did state that Cohen's testimony alone cannot be enough to convict Trump. From Turley:

Merchan instructed that Cohen is an accomplice and, as such, there is a special concern over such testimony particularly when there are benefits for testimony. There must be corroborating evidence. In other words, you may not convict the defendant solely on the basis of the testimony of Cohen.

That appears to be good news for the Trump side if the jury follows this. The only actual thing tying Trump to the actual "falsified documents" (the actual crime) is Michael Cohen's double hearsay testimony that Allen Weisselberg told him that the classification of how to ledger the payments was Trump's idea. Obviously Weisselberg did not testify to corroborate and they never provided any evidence of Trump's intention. There was no smoking gun recordings, emails, test messages, or documentation showing Trump having anything to do with the actual falsification of documents. They really only have testimony. So on paper in any fair trial this would be a slam dunk acquittal based on that instruction alone. In fact that alone should have given the judge reason to provide a directed verdict of not-guilty.

The judge (who is not a member of the FEC and has no jurisdiction) provided his "assessment" on the FECA violations, which mirrors the liberal argument that anything that helps a campaign should be considered a contribution (which is not true). He then suggests that if the payments otherwise would have been made, then they are not a contribution (also not the actual legal reasoning). The actual requirement from the FEC and Federal laws requires something to be solely a campaign expense and does assist the candidate personally for it to be eligible to be paid out of campaign funds. The allowance of paying for the expense out of funds is what makes it a campaign contribution. There is no "crime" for not reporting, that would be a reporting violation (which is civil, not criminal).

He provides that the other two possible crimes that might be covered up are tax violations and other business records being falsified (which seems to be a circular argument by all accounts). Noticeably lacking, seems to be the crime of improperly influencing an election, which is what the prosecution spent a majority of their case arguing.

Either way, I don't believe that the instructions were as bad as some thought they might be and certainly Bragg and gang did not get everything they wanted here.

That being said, McCarthy wrote a whole column suggesting the jury will find Trump guilty. While he mostly blames the unfairness of the judge and the trial, he also blames an early decision by the defense to suggest Trump did not reimburse Cohen for the payment. While this seems to have been lost in everything else McCarthy believes that that little "lie" told by the Trump team might be enough to make the jury believe that they had a legal fear of being tied to the payment. A payment that the defense later pretty much agreed happened.

I think a lot of people were frustrated by the six hour closing arguments and what the Judge allowed the prosecution to get away with (or perhaps the defense not objecting more). But if they take the judge at his word and follow the jury instructions, then much of that won't matter.

This is the old attorney truism. If the law is on your side, then argue the law. If the facts are on your side, then argue the facts. If neither is on your side, then pound the table. The prosecution has plenty of facts (most not relevant to the case) and they pounded the table with irrelevant facts and demands of guilt for six hours. What sort of effect does that have in a trial this long? Time will tell.