In a historic trial, legal experts have raised concerns over the ability to convince a jury to convict Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels case. As the first former president in United States history to stand trial in a criminal case, Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records related to payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal. However, experts point to a lack of clear evidence linking Trump to election fraud.

The Manhattan District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, aims to prove that prior to the 2016 presidential election, Trump either paid or discussed payments with the two women to conceal alleged affairs. The prosecution argues that Trump's actions influenced voter perception of his character. Trump has consistently denied having affairs with either woman.

Legal scholars have voiced their skepticism regarding the case. Boston University legal professor, Jed Handelsman Shugerman, published an opinion piece in The New York Times criticizing Bragg's decision to pursue the trial. Shugerman highlighted the absence of explicit examples of election fraud and questioned the prosecution's use of state law without specifying an actual election crime or a valid theory of fraud. He emphasized that while it may be morally questionable, it is not illegal for a candidate to pay for a nondisclosure agreement, calling the case an overreach on the part of the prosecution.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, echoed similar sentiments in an opinion article for the Los Angeles Times. Hasen argued that categorizing the case as election interference diminishes the term and undermines the severity of genuine election interference cases. He posited that the failure to report a campaign payment is a minor campaign-finance crime that may not pack the punch necessary to sway voters.

Greg Germain, a law professor at Syracuse University, voiced doubts about the legality of Trump's actions as well. Germain pointed out that Bragg's opening statement failed to establish the specific law under which the hush money payments to Stormy Daniels would be considered illegal.

Despite these concerns, the trial continues, with the prosecution and defense presenting their respective cases. Observers await the outcome of this high-stakes trial, recognizing the potential implications it may have for future cases involving high-profile figures.

Newsweek reached out to the office of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg for comment, but no response was received as of Wednesday. The trial of Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels case continues to remain under intense scrutiny as legal experts question the strength of the prosecution's case.