The first mission of a prosecutor’s closing argument is cementing the elements of the crime to the evidence. On Tuesday in Manhattan, it will be time for closing arguments in Donald Trump’s criminal trial for falsifying business records. Here’s one workmanlike way that prosecutor Joshua Steinglass might approach the task of tying together the evidence presented throughout a trial that began in April”: Emphasize the “Trump Tower conspiracy” that prosecutors have proven.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My colleague Matt Colangelo’s opening statement began by telling you:

This case is about a criminal conspiracy and a cover-up to corrupt the 2016 presidential election; then he covered up that criminal conspiracy by lying in his New York business records.

That’s the heart of this case.

You know the three categories of falsified records: checks, invoices, and vouchers maintained in the Trump Organization’s books. The conspiracy is a key way that the law makes a defendant criminally liable for all the acts done by his co-conspirators in furtherance of their agreement. Once the conspiracy is proven, it does not matter that it isn’t charged or that the defendant didn’t personally create some of the documents.

A second way that the defendant is liable is that even without a conspiracy, accomplices to a crime are responsible for the criminal actions of their partners.

The most direct way the defendant connects to the crimes, of course, is his own actions. The defendant or his sons signed 11 checks to Michael Cohen with a false stub notation, “Retainer.”

Falsifying business records is a felony whenever someone:

You must answer five questions relating to those five elements of the crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt leads to “YES” on each one and to a guilty verdict.

1.) Were the business records false?

Yes.

The checks’ stubs falsely say they were for a “retainer”; the false invoices say, “per retainer”; and the vouchers say the same.

Related

We know they weren’t for legal expenses as posted in the books, or a retainer – and not just because no retainer existed. We know because three times since 2017 the defendant has admitted that the payments were reimbursements: on Twitter, in his government financial disclosure form, and in his lawsuit against Daniels. There he represented in court that he had reimbursed........

© Salon