Closing arguments begin Tuesday in Donald Trump’s criminal hush-money trial, and the former president is not pleased with the order of operations.
On Monday night, Trump published a series of Truth Social posts complaining about the trial. At one point, the former president claimed that standard courtroom procedure allowing the prosecution to rebut the defense’s closing arguments was proof of a “witch hunt” against him.
“WHY IS THE CORRUPT GOVERNMENT ALLOWED TO MAKE THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN THE CASE AGAINST ME? WHY CAN’T THE DEFENSE GO LAST? BIG ADVANTAGE, VERY UNFAIR. WITCH HUNT!” Trump wrote, signing the post with his initials.
According to the American Bar Association, closing arguments take place in the reverse order of opening statements, with the prosecution summarizing their case to the jury first. Following the defense’s presentation, the prosecution — which is ultimately responsible for proving the allegations against the defendant — is entitled to make a rebuttal, although this does not always happen.
It’s not the first time Trump has attempted to twist standard trial procedure into evidence of bias against him. During jury selection, the former president complained that he ought to be granted “unlimited” strikes against potential jurors.
After nearly five weeks of evidentiary presentations, witness statements, cross-examinations, and tense courtroom drama, both sides will be making a final pitch to the jury on why Trump is either guilty or innocent. No new evidence may be presented during closing statements, but attorneys are granted the flexibility to weave a compelling, often emotionally charged narrative for the jurors in their final appeals.
Trump also complained on Monday that the defense’s presentation had been truncated by Judge Juan Merchan, and that their one witness — Robert Costello — had been treated unfairly during his testimony.
“Could somebody please ask Judge Merchan, whatever happened to MARK POMERANTZ, the man Alvin Bragg was furious at for the things he did on this contrived and unconstitutional case, and why wasn’t he allowed to testify? Also, why did Judge Merchan not allow Brad Smith, the leading Election Law Expert in the Country, to testify. He would have ended the case quickly by explaining the Law and stating that President Trump did nothing wrong,” Trump wrote.
Trump remains under a limited gag order barring him from commenting on witnesses involved in the case and has already been found in contempt of the court’s restrictions on his public statements ten times.
Trump’s legal team repeatedly attempted to subpoena Pomerantz, a former Manhattan prosecutor who at one point oversaw the investigation into Trump. Merchan called their requests “impermissibly broad” and an attempt at an “improper fishing expedition,” that sought information “on topics that are not relevant and material to the facts at issue”
Smith was not summarily barred from testifying by Merchan, who said he was willing to allow the legal expert and a former member of the Federal Election Commission to take the stand if his testimony was limited to a discussion of the “general definitions and terms” relevant to campaign finance law. “There is no question this would result in a battle of the experts, which will only serve to confuse, and not assist, the jury,” Merchan said.
The former president moaned Monday that he risked becoming a “common criminal” despite his ongoing campaign for the presidency. Trump once again claimed that the case against him amounted to “prosecutorial Misconduct,” and “election Interference.” Regardless of the former president’s feelings on the matter, before the week is out this case will be in the hands of a jury of his peers, who will be tasked with handing down one of the most consequential verdicts in American history.
