We'll be back tomorrow as they discuss a potential verdict
for the 34 felony counts against Donald Trump.
Fox's Connor Hanson is in New York tonight.
The jury has been instructed on how exactly they'll decide
if the former president broke the law.
They're now deliberating and will take as long as they
need to reach a decision.
Jurors are already asking the judge questions about key testimony
from witnesses like Michael Cohen and David Pecker about meetings
inside Trump Tower.
After listening to more than a month of witness testimony
and a marathon session Tuesday of closing arguments,
a jury of 12 will determine Donald Trump's fate.
Mother Teresa could not be these charges.
These charges are rigged. The whole thing is rigged.
Prosecutors allege he was part of a business scheme to
cover up hush money payments made to adult film star
Stormy Daniels to silence her claims of an affair before
the 2016 election. I think that the prosecutors really failed
up until closing argument to explain to the jury what
the actual crime here was and introduce the evidence they
needed to prove it. The jury must be unanimous for
any guilty verdict,
whether it's all 34 felony charges or just some.
As they deliberate, the seven men and five women can
ask follow up questions on handwritten notes.
Trump denies any wrongdoing, but if found guilty,
could always appeal. I think the far likelier outcome in
the event of a conviction is either a sentence of
probation,
potentially home confinement. If the jury finds Trump guilty,
it'll be up to Judge Juan Marshawn alone to decide
what the sentence is.
It could also, of course,
end in an acquittal or a hung jury if the
jurors can't all agree.
In New York, Connor Hanson,
Fox News
with more on today's deliberations.
What might be next. We're joined by loyal law professor
Jessica Levinson.
Jessica, good to see you.
So the the big headline of the day there was
this bell.
Everybody had to come back into court for the jurors
to ask questions of the judge.
What were the questions and what does that tell us?
I know everybody wants to hear,
oh, these questions mean they are absolutely going to convict
by tomorrow morning or these questions are phenomenal for the
defense.
And I think that what we see honestly is that
the jury is going to the heart of the
prosecution's case here. As we just heard,
the jurors questions were about this meeting,
largely about this meeting at Trump Tower.
And the meeting was about the plan to create this
so-called catch and Kills
scheme where there were various people sitting around the table,
David Pecker, who owns the company that owns the National
Enquirer.
And the question is, did they say,
you know what we're going to do?
We're going to buy up negative stories about the former
president and
then, of course, candidate president so that the voters don't
get to hear those stories.
Now, what's key here, I think,
is that they're trying to figure out if they can
connect Trump to that behavior,
to that plan. And So what we can see so
far is the jury's taking their role seriously.
They also asked to hear jury instructions again.
And they're asking about the heart of the
prosecution's case, which is the theory that even though this
is about business records,
it's actually about election interference,
not in the 2020 election,
but in the 2016 election.
Well, let's talk about that more broadly because the the
prosecutors are suggesting that Donald Trump was trying to cover
up another crime,
but haven't really said what that other crime is.
And the the judge trying to explain about that as
well.
Can you break that down?
Because that part's kind of confusing.
It is kind of confusing.
And frankly, I think that might be the best thing
the defense has going for it,
which is the way this case is charged is complicated.
And let's be honest about this.
So step one, were the business records falsified?
What do we mean by that?
When Trump paid Cohen, was that for legal services as
Trump says,
or was that for reimbursement of the hush money payment
to Stormy Daniels?
He also we have to show in that falsification that
there was the intent to falsify those records.
It didn't happen by a mistake.
That's step number one. Step #2
If you pass yes, the records are falsified.
Were they falsified in order to commit or conceal another
crime?
We're still going. It's still somewhat complicated.
The next crime is the prosecution pointing to a New
York election code that deals essentially with unlawfully interfering with
an election.
Now, what does unlawful mean?
We fill in the word unlawful by looking to,
well, maybe it's a violation of federal campaign finance laws.
Maybe it's a violation of state or federal tax laws,
or maybe it's actually other people trying to falsify business
records.
That's the end of the story.
But as you all heard,
it took me a moment to say step one,
Step 2, step three, you're really good at this,
that the jury has to do.
Sorry. And you're really good at this and you're a
law professor,
and it took you all that time to do it.
Speaking of somebody who's really smart about the law,
you had a huge honor last night.
It's very rare that Supreme Court justices,
active or retired, give interviews.
And last night with the writer's block,
you were chosen for an interview
with retired Justice Stephen Breyer.
What was that experience like for him,
from him and and what did you learn from him?
So this was something put on by Los Angeles Live
Book Talks.
And I was able to interview him because Justice Breyer
is on a book tour and he wrote a book
about how do we read the Constitution?
And Alex, you're always so generous about highlighting my work,
you know, in and outside of our interviews.
And I really appreciate that.
And for me, obviously, as a law professor,
a huge honor to speak to any Supreme Court.
Justice Breyer was particularly fascinating because the book is,
in my view, just a cry to not just judges,
but to the public to say,
look at these different methods of judging and look at
why mine is right and why it wouldn't only support
the Constitution,
but it would support our democracy if we all get
on board with my judicial philosophy.
And of course, it's a very different philosophy than right
now is in the majority on the court
with people like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas assuming to
have a lot more sway than the Stephen Breyer way
of looking at things.
But times change. Jessica Levinson,
thank you so much. Great to see you and Congrats
on the event this week.
Thank you.