Note from Elie: The Trump Trial — What if Everyone’s a Horrible Liar? 07:46

There's nothing worse than getting home from your trip only to find out you missed a can't-miss travel experience. That's why you need Viator. Book guided tours, excursions, and more in one place to make your trip truly unregrettable. There are over 300,000 travel experiences to choose from so you can find something for everyone. And Viator offers free cancellation and 24-7 customer service. So you always have support around the clock.

Download the Viator app now to use code VIATOR10 for 10% off your first booking in the app. Regret less. Do more with Viator.

Hey, everyone. Ellie here, wishing you a happy Friday, an off day from the Trump trial. This is the day Donald Trump is going to his son's graduation from high school. So I guess congratulations to the Trump family. Very nice. It's also a day off of sorts for me. I want to say this about the trial. I've said it before. I don't have a personal stake in what this verdict is. I'm very interested in it. I think it's very important, but I have zero rooting interest.

And I'll say right now, and I've said it over and over again, whatever this verdict is, I absolutely am willing to accept it. This has been a fair trial. It's been efficient. It's been smooth. The judge has done his job. The lawyers have done their jobs. The jury, by all accounts, has been attentive and careful. So.

I trust this process. I think it's been a good process. I think it's good for everyone to see it. Well, not quite see it. There's no cameras in the courtroom, heaven forbid. But we are doing our best to bring it to you live on a rolling basis on CNN and elsewhere. And I think and hope people do agree on at least that much. In any event, on to this week's brief. As always, I like to point out something that I think has been under-noticed and maybe going under the radar a bit.

Hope you enjoy and find it illuminating. As always, I'd love to hear your thoughts, questions, or comments. So keep them coming. Letters at Cafe.com.

Ask any defense lawyer whether the criminal trial process inherently favors prosecutors and brace for an earful. Prosecutors get to open first and close last. Remember those lessons from Psych 101 about primacy and recency, whatever an audience hears first and last tends to resonate most. Judges, far more of whom are former prosecutors than defense counsel, often show respect and even deference to prosecutors, but sometimes they treat defense lawyers as pesky interlopers of dubious candor and motive.

Prosecutors get to preen about how we represent the people, or the United States.

While defense lawyers often stand alone for the unsympathetic accused. In many courtrooms, prosecutors occupy the table right next to the jury box, while the defense team sits on the opposite side of the courtroom. As one frustrated defense lawyer memorably said to me, you guys are so spoiled. You have every effing edge and you'd have to be a moron to lose the case. I heard variations of this eminently fair complaint countless times.

Of course, we prosecutors have our snappy response at the ready. Hey, if you don't like it, you're welcome to carry the burden of proof. Trust me, it's snappier when said among lawyers. The point is that for all the prosecutor's structural advantages, we still bear the heaviest burden of all. We must prove every legal element of our case beyond a reasonable doubt and to the unanimous satisfaction of the jury. If one juror out of 12 has a mild twinge of uncertainty about one component of a crime, there can be no conviction.

As we enter the homestretch of the first ever criminal trial of a former U.S. president, the burden of proof looms large. It's such a deeply embedded principle underlying our criminal justice system that we often overlook its importance. It's simply not about whether the defendant is a better person or worse or way, way, way worse than the prosecution's witnesses. It's about whether the prosecution can prove its case, which here is ultimately a small board charge turning on the nuances of internal accounting practices that

and whether they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. This has become a common retort to the self-evident observation that some of the prosecution's key witnesses have previously lied under oath, are consumed by personal vitriol, and have profiteered around the case. Oh, but Donald Trump does all those things and more all the time. He's just as bad, if not worse.

Sure, the argument goes, Michael Cohen is a proven liar driven by an all-consuming personal vendetta, but so is Trump. Sure, Stormy Daniels has made money by selling her story about sex and selling tacky tchotchkes. Trump indictment, Kendall, anybody? But isn't Trump himself the king of merchandising sleaze? Maybe David Pecker makes a living in checkbook journalism, but Trump was the willing beneficiary.

This line of argument is persuasive. In a casual setting, you can win a debate in any bar, kitchen, or green room with the observation that Trump is a worse human being than any prosecution witness. But that doesn't get the job done in court, at least not if the jurors actually follow the law.

President Joe Biden is fond of saying this. Don't compare me to the almighty. Compare me to the alternative. You've heard him say it. It's an insightful and persuasive political line. But the opposite applies in a criminal trial. Prosecutors must prove not merely that their case is better than the alternative, but that their evidence satisfies the almighty burden of proof.

Let's consider what happens if the jury concludes that both Michael Cohen and Donald Trump are deeply dishonest, immoral fiends. The answer, a not guilty verdict. If the jury rejects Cohen's testimony, then the prosecution can't tie Trump directly to the charge falsification of business records offenses. And he walks, even if the jury despises the former president even more than all the prosecution's witnesses combined.

Now, Judge Juan Merchan, another former prosecutor, by the way, as we discussed above, he stepped perilously close to improperly shifting the burden of proof in one recent sidebar. Addressing the kerfuffle about whether Stormy Daniels had gone into excessive detail about her 2006 sexual encounter with Trump, Judge Merchan said outside the presence of the jury that Trump's

lawyer's denial of the incident in his opening statement, quote, puts the jury in a position of having to choose who they believe, Donald Trump, who denies there was an encounter, or Stormy Daniels, who claims that there was, end quote. Wrong. Judge Mershon has done an exceptional job running this trial so far, but he's off base here. It's not about whether the jury believes Daniels or Trump more than the other. It's about whether the prosecution can meet its larger evidentiary burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the judge were to instruct the jury to the same effect that he said about Daniels, and he won't, he's too good to commit such a glaring error, then the result would be an instant reversal by the appeals courts.

None of this is to suggest Trump is likely to beat the case. I've said all along, and I still believe now, that conviction is more likely than not. Cohen's testimony is corroborated substantially enough by checks, emails, phone records, and financial records that the jury can reach a guilty verdict without taking a blind leap of faith on Cohen's word alone. But a trial is not a popularity contest or a morality play or a who-started-it beef.

If the jury concludes that they're all a bunch of untrustworthy, opportunistic scoundrels, then even if Trump is the worst of the worst, the legally mandated verdict is not guilty. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.

On September 28th, the Global Citizen Festival will gather thousands of people who took action to end extreme poverty. Watch Post Malone, Doja Cat, Lisa, Jelly Roll and Raul Alejandro as they take the stage with world leaders and activists to defeat poverty, defend the planet and demand equity. Download the Global Citizen app to watch live. Learn more at globalcitizen.org.com.