Trump Defense Rests in NY Trial; Election Law Expert Blocked from Testifying

Former President Trump's defense team rested its case Tuesday without calling him to the witness stand, as a key election law expert was barred from testifying after the judge restricted the scope of his testimony.

After a contentious trial, the jury in the New York v. Trump case was dismissed Tuesday without hearing from former President Donald Trump. The defense team had been expected to call a former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to testify, but the expert's testimony was not heard after the presiding judge, Juan Merchan, limited the scope of his testimony.

Bradley Smith, an election law expert, is considered a top expert in his field but was prevented from testifying after Judge Merchan ruled that he could only speak about the basic definitions surrounding election law and not expand beyond that scope.

Smith, who had been slated to shed light on allegations that Trump falsified business records to cover up an election violation, expressed disappointment over the decision, stating that the judge's limitations "effectively" led to the jury getting its instructions on election law from Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer who testified for the prosecution.

Smith argued that election laws are extremely complex and that simply reading the statute to the jury would not be sufficient for their understanding. He anticipated laying out ways the law has been interpreted in ways that might not be obvious, including the distinction between campaign expenditures and personal use.

The defense team has maintained that the prosecution's case against Trump is weak, citing the fact that both the Justice Department and the FEC declined to prosecute the matter in recent years. Smith, in particular, has accused the prosecution of bringing the case under political pressure.

The prosecution alleges that Trump's payments to Stormy Daniels were campaign expenditures that should have been publicly reported. However, the defense contends that the payments were personal use and therefore not subject to campaign finance regulations.

Smith further argued that the prosecution must prove that Trump tried to influence an election through "unlawful means" but is relying on its own evidence since neither the DOJ nor the FEC pursued the case. He questioned the relevance of Cohen's guilty plea and testimony, considering his lack of campaign finance law expertise.

The defense team rested Tuesday, and the jury was dismissed until after Memorial Day. Closing arguments are anticipated to begin next Tuesday, May 30. The outcome of the trial remains uncertain, with both sides presenting strong arguments and the judge playing a key role in determining the admissibility of evidence.