Alvin Bragg Nightmare - Massive Issue Dooms His Case

Hey ladies and gentlemen, this is Carmine Sabia for Explain America and Alvin Bragg

just got gobsmacked. He was not expecting this. Before we get started, please make sure you like, comment, share and subscribe

Those little things really help us out and they help our channel continue to grow

Look, Alvin Bragg brought this case, in my opinion, for political reasons

That's just my opinion. You feel free to disagree with it. It's a matter of opinion

Everybody's entitled to their own. But I think the weakness of this case has been really talked about a lot by legal experts

It's a very weak case. It's a Frankenstein case put together, cobbled together to try and get around the statute

of limitations even and to turn what would be a bookkeeping error and a fine into a felony

is absolutely ridiculous. But that's not even the biggest issue for Alvin Bragg. No

A legal expert pointed out the much, much bigger issue for Bragg

What is that? Well, it's that the evidence he has against Trump isn't really evidence

It isn't really good evidence anyway. They got a bunch of papers that are not signed by Donald Trump

There's no indication Trump knew anything about these things because there's no signature trail to show he knew anything about these things

These things could have been done behind his back by his team. Guys like Trump have massive teams doing things

You think they're aware of every little detail? Now this legal expert says that could be what sinks Alvin Bragg's case

I want you to hear what they have to say and then let me know what you think

As always, please remember to like, comment, share and subscribe. I'm Carmine Sabia for Explain America

We love you guys. God bless you. Take care, everybody. Joining me now, criminal defense attorney Arthur Aydala

You represented some very high profile controversial defendants, Harvey Weinstein, Rudy Giuliani

How do you approach opening statements in a case when the jury knows your client and

he's one of the most famous or infamous people in the world? Well, Anderson, you try to make your opening argument as close as you can to your to your

closing argument. It's almost like a summation. The first thing I would do here is I would listen intently, obviously, to the prosecutor's

opening and then try to pull something out of it. And my first line would be like, you heard what she just said

Well, let me tell you this. And then attack. You want to try to make a connection with those jurors

You want them to like you. I believe Todd Blanch is the one who's doing the opening

You want to make some kind of a connection with them. And you just want to attack, attack, attack

You can't believe Michael Cohen. You can't believe Stormy Daniels. And then you want to embrace yourself with the judge and what the judge's instructions

are and say, the judge is going to tell you this and the judge is going to tell you that

And we agree. And if you listen to the judge, there's no way that they can prove that case beyond a

reasonable doubt. And the only verdict you can reach is one of not guilty

The prosecution were told opening statement are going to be about 40 minutes

The defense about 20. Is keeping it short better? It really it's a real strategic decision, Anderson

And you know, I knew I know Susan Nicholas, who's one of the attorneys here, and she's

a masterful lawyer. I mean, I'm sure they've spoken about this. I'm sure they vetted it

I'm sure they've done a little moot arguments. You know, my approach is to really go hard in the opening statement

Years ago, The New York Times did a study and jurors found that 80 percent of jurors

found that whatever they thought the verdict was going to be after the openings was their verdict

Eighty percent. So I look at opening statements as a tremendous opportunity to really sway jurors over to

your side. Arthur, just hold on. I want to get some more information from inside the court

What are you hearing? So we don't have too many updates beyond just talking about the burden of proof

And the judge is emphasizing that the burden of proof is always at the prosecutor

It never shifts to the defendant. And if that burden of proof is not met, the judge reminds the jurors that they must find

the defendant not guilty. Arthur, I know you've said that if you were on the Trump defense, you wouldn't be looking

for an outright acquittal. You'd be aiming for a hung jury. How would you go about creating that shadow of a doubt in the mind of, you know, at least

one juror? You know, again, you got to really look at the law and what the judge is going to say

in the closing instructions to the jury. You know, he just gave the opening instructions to the jury

But you know, we have a good idea as lawyers what the judge is going to say at the end

So you look at what he's going to say at the end and you bring it to the beginning because it gives you so much credibility at the end of the case when the jurors hear again what

you said at the beginning of the case out of the mouth of the judge, which they usually

hold in very high regard. And again, you just have to attack, attack, attack those those witnesses

And look, what you got to say is Michael Cohen should be a code defendant

If you believe what the prosecutors just said, Michael Cohen should be a code defendant

not a witness. He has so many reasons to lie, so many reasons to pin this on someone else to keep himself

out of jail, which he was unable to do in the federal case

I mean, Michael Cohen is a felon. He is an admitted liar. Does the prosecution's case, you think, rise and fall with his credibility

I think it has a tremendous impact. Look, there is paperwork that corroborates the people's evidence, and that's obviously

hurtful for the president. But my understanding is it's not paperwork with Donald Trump's handwriting on it or his

signature on it, except for a check. So the defense could merely be, hey, Michael Cohen did all of this

He never told his client. He just said, look, I need money for this. I need money for that. And, you know, one of the witnesses is going to testify at this trial testified for the feds

And he said that the money that was given to Michael Cohen was for Stormy Daniels and

for legal fees. That's a reasonable doubt. So you got to hang on these little reasonable doubts, Anderson, and put them as many together

as you can for your closing argument