With focus on charges, jury in Trump hush money trial begins deliberations

But the trial also has its share of problems, too, which heighten the stakes as America barrels towards an election in November.

First there’s the perception of politics. Trump, after all, is a Republican presumptive nominee in the heat of an election campaign, being charged by district attorney Alvin Bragg, a Democrat who campaigned for his job as the best candidate to go after the former president.

Now he’s leading the first of four criminal trials that Trump faces – and perhaps the only one to take place before voters head to the polls in months.

Secondly, there’s the issue of time – and substance. At the heart of this case is a $US130,000 payment that was made seven years ago by Trump’s former fixer, Michael Cohen to silence adult film star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Loading

But when prosecutors began investigating the matter, they went back and forth on charging Trump so often that the case became known as “the zombie case” – a reference to the mythical creature that keeps rising from the dead.

Charges had been considered and abandoned by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, who had already investigated Trump and chosen not to indict him under federal campaign finance law for the same scheme.

Former Manhattan district attorney Cyrus Vance looked into the case twice but chose not to pursue it, partly because securing a conviction relied on untested legal strategies.

And even Bragg himself initially took his time – but eventually opted to pursue charges through some legal gymnastics of his own. And therein lies the third big problem.

Boiled down, Trump has been charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records, which centre on claims that he directed the hush money payment and then reimbursed Cohen, but disguised it as a legal retainer to cover up its true purpose.

However, the falsification of business records is typically a misdemeanour offence in New York – and it can only be elevated to a felony if the prosecution can show the defendant cooked the books with the intention to commit or conceal another crime: in this case, the violation of New York election laws making it illegal for two or more conspirators “to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means.”

But while the jury must agree that something unlawful was done to promote Trump’s election campaign, they don’t have to be unanimous on what that unlawful action was.

Three of the jurors, for example, could believe there was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (which caps campaign contributions and which the Daniels payment exceeded). Another four could think it’s a breach of tax laws (related to the “grossing up” of Cohen’s reimbursement). And the remaining five could believe it’s additional falsification of business records (outside of the Trump Organisation’s accounts).

Not surprisingly, Trump – who refused to testify in his own defence – is not happy. His legal team has already signalled its intention to appeal if he is convicted. And outside the court, even some of the former president’s critics wonder about the implications of a case that is far from clear-cut.

Loading

“Normally, you have a crime and you find a suspect – but in this case, it was like they had a suspect and they had to find a crime,” said New Jersey resident John DeFelice, a software developer who has spent several days in court watching the trial.

“I personally want him to be convicted – I have almost nothing to say that would be complimentary about Trump – but many people in this country will perceive it as unfair, and we’ll be left with even greater division than we had before.”

For now, however, America waits…. as a diverse group of five women and seven men weigh a monumental decision that could change the course of history.