A Nation’s ‘Teachable Moment’: What We Need to Learn from Trump’s Trials and Reactions
Educators treasure something we call “teachable moments”—those occasions when a high-profile event captures our students’ attention, interest and imagination. As experienced and accomplished classroom teachers of civics, social studies and English language arts, the three of us would look forward to such moments, as they provided unique opportunities to engage students in in-depth learning on important subjects.
The May 31 criminal conviction of former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate, is certainly a “teachable moment,” and not only for students, but for all Americans. It is the first time in our history that an individual who held the highest elected office in our republic has been found guilty of committing a felony—not once, but 34 times, and by a jury of his peers.
What should educators teach students about this trial and conviction? What should Americans conclude about these events?
Here’s an important caveat: When the three of us were teaching, it was before this spate of post-COVID book banning, history-censoring culture wars and attacks on the freedom to teach. We suspect that now, some districts would want educators to just ignore Trump’s conviction, but that would do a disservice to students—particularly because we know that young people will fill the vacuum with other sources, most likely from social media.
The question then is, do we make this a teachable moment based on facts, historical significance and context, or will this event be understood through the TikTok algorithm, without any discernment for fact, context or disinformation?
The criminal conviction of a former president is unprecedented. It’s a really big deal. But the fact that a former president should be held to the same rule of law as any other citizen in America is not unprecedented. It’s a premise that every president, Republican or Democrat, Whig or Federalist, has abided by—until now.
"It’s why, during the Watergate scandal caused by illegal activity, President Richard Nixon quit. And it’s why Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew—unrelated to Watergate—also resigned after pleading no contest to a felony charge of tax evasion for kickbacks he accepted when he was governor of Maryland.
This accountability is why no president has ever asked for immunity from criminal prosecutions before Trump. And his quest for immunity is right now in front of the Supreme Court, a court where he appointed three of the justices.
The procedures used in the trial that led to this verdict were also not unprecedented. These procedures are standard for criminal defendants in New York. They are designed to guarantee a fair trial for the accused, who is presumed innocent. By studying the trial, we can see how the criminal justice system works and whether the verdict was justified.
Like others accused of breaking the law, Trump received an indictment that outlined the charges against him, so he and his lawyers could prepare their defense well in advance.
Jury trials begin with the selection of the jurors, who will collectively decide the facts of a case: whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charges. The jury in Trump’s trial was drawn randomly from a pool of New Yorkers and represented a cross section of ordinary citizens. Potential jurors were questioned by the judge, Trump’s own defense lawyers and prosecutors to weed out potential bias and ensure that the jury would be fair and impartial.
After a jury is sworn in, the trial begins with opening statements by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. Each side previews what they will attempt to demonstrate during the trial with witnesses and other evidence.
Following opening statements, the prosecution puts on its case. It has the “burden of proof”: It must demonstrate beyond a “reasonable doubt” that the defendant committed the crimes charged. To support these charges, the prosecution calls witnesses to testify and introduces documentary evidence. During this time, the defendant’s attorneys have the opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and object to improper evidence.
In the Trump trial, the evidence presented by the prosecution was substantial. With 20 witnesses and 200 pieces of evidence, the prosecution painstakingly made its case: It showed that by falsifying business records and evading tax and campaign finance laws, Trump had engaged in criminal acts designed to win the 2016 election through illegal means. It is important to remember that during the jury deliberations the jury asked for some of that testimony to be read back.
Once the prosecution has rested its case, the defendant’s attorneys have an opportunity to make a rebuttal case. Like the prosecution, the defense can call witnesses to testify and introduce evidence. A defendant can testify in their own defense but does not have to; under the Sixth Amendment, a defendant has the constitutional right to decide not to testify.
In the Trump trial, the defense cross-examined prosecution witnesses but chose to bring only two witnesses of its own to the stand. Trump did not testify on his own behalf.
Once both the prosecution and the defense have rested, each side is given one more opportunity to be heard, by making a closing argument to the jury in support of their view of the case and the evidence. When closing arguments are concluded, the judge instructs the jurors on the law they are to use in reaching a verdict.
At this point, the jury begins its deliberations: It examines the evidence, applies the law as the judge has instructed, and attempts to reach a verdict. After two days of careful deliberation, the jury in the Trump trial notified the judge it had reached a unanimous verdict. The jurors returned to the courtroom, and that verdict was read: guilty on all 34 counts. Each juror was individually polled to confirm the stated verdict reflected their own vote.
That’s how, after a full and fair trial, a jury of American citizens, a jury of his peers, found Donald Trump guilty of felony crimes.
And because of the unprecedented nature of it, many cable channels offered a blow-by-blow description of the trial. Having journalists report on the trial in real time was helpful because New York law does not allow cameras in the courtroom.
It was a criminal trial that happened as it should have happened: It followed exactly the trial procedures for impartiality and fairness, with their abundant protections for the rights of a defendant presumed to be innocent. Notwithstanding the barrage of unfounded accusations Trump and his allies have launched against the judge, the prosecution, the jury and the entire criminal justice system, he had his proverbial day in court and was found guilty.
And, like other criminal defendants, he gets to appeal.
We do not claim that the American criminal justice system is flawless or that it could not be improved. But where injustices are done, they are generally at the expense of the poor and the marginalized, who cannot afford the legal representation available to the wealthy and powerful. Trump, a wealthy former president of the United States, has access to the very best of legal talent.
The Trump trial and verdict raise a fundamental democratic principle of American government, the rule of law. “We are a nation of laws,” wrote John Adams, the second U.S. president, “and not of men.” For Adams, and for the other founders, the rule of law meant that all Americans, from the most powerful to the most insignificant, were subject to the same law, and that the law was equally applied to all. No person is above the law, not even the president.
Democracies committed to the rule of law do not look the other way when leaders entrusted with power violate the law for their personal gain. France tried and convicted former President Nicolas Sarkozy on corruption charges. Italy tried and convicted former President Silvio Berlusconi on charges of abuse of office and corruption. American elected officials such as former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert have been tried and convicted for crimes.
Shortly after Trump’s trial, Hunter Biden was tried in federal court for lying and gun possession. Following the same judicial procedure outlined above for Trump’s trial, Hunter Biden was also found guilty by a jury, undoubtedly causing great heartache for his father, President Joe Biden. And yes, while Hunter Biden has also pledged to appeal, notice the difference in the reaction to these guilty verdicts from the 45th president and the 46th president: Joe Biden said what every other president has said or should say: “I will respect the outcome of this case and will continue to respect the judicial process as Hunter considers his appeal.”
This is what our democracy demands of us, if we want America to stay a democracy.
It should not be lost on us that it was 12 ordinary Americans who took on the challenging task of sitting in judgment for this trial and rendering a fair verdict, dictated by the law and the facts. They defended the rule of law. We must do no less.
Randi Weingarten is a civics and social studies teacher who serves as the president of the AFT and the Albert Shanker Institute. She is also a lawyer.
Leo Casey is a civics and social studies teacher. He is executive director emeritus of the Albert Shanker Institute.
Mary Cathryn Ricker is a National Board-certified teacher of English language arts. She is executive director of the Albert Shanker Institute and former Minnesota commissioner of education.