Both the prosecution and defense have called all of their witnesses and rested their cases in the New York criminal trial of former President Donald Trump, and both sides will deliver their closing arguments next week, after which the jury will be given instructions by the judge and sent to deliberate until they reach a verdict.

According to Fox News legal analyst Greg Jarrett, the case as presented over the five-week trial "has reasonable doubt written all over it," but a "not guilty" verdict from the jury is no guarantee thanks to the efforts of partisan prosecutors, the biased judge, and prejudicial testimony from some of the witnesses.

"Absurd" Trump trial a "mockery of our legal system"

"District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s absurd case made a mockery of our legal system. Judge Juan Merchan compounded the injustice by dismantling the principles of due process that every defendant deserves. His rulings from the bench consistently favored the prosecution and foreclosed Trump’s lawyers from presenting a bona fide defense that would be permitted in any other courtroom," Jarrett wrote.

"Working in tandem, Bragg and Merchan proved they have little respect for the rule of law or the rights of the accused. This is not an impartial tribunal. It’s an Orwellian show trial with a preordained outcome. There’s no presumption of innocence, only the expectation of guilt," he continued.

Jarrett called out Judge Merchan's evident "anti-Trump bias" as being "particularly insidious" in how he routinely sided with the prosecution over the defense on motions and objections and allowed the prosecution's witnesses to say virtually anything while strictly limiting what the defense's witnesses could say.

Then there is the fact that the prosecution still hasn't named the supposed other crime that enabled DA Bragg to elevate typically misdemeanor falsification of business records charges to felonies -- which would seemingly violate former President Trump's Sixth Amendment right "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation" against him -- an oversight that Merchan has allowed or simply ignored.

Merchan, of course, is the same judge who has violated Trump's First Amendment rights with a gag order that grossly restricts his free speech and prevents him from responding to the attacks and smears from the witnesses against him who suffered no similar constraints.

"This case has reasonable doubt written all over it"

"In reality, none of the essential elements of the alleged crimes in the indictment have been met by prosecutors," Jarrett wrote. "There is no credible evidence that Trump engineered or even knew about booking entries by accountants that were not false at all. Nor is there any plausible evidence that he willfully violated campaign laws that were not violations at all. Where is the fraud that prosecutors argued in their opening statement?"

"Like Bigfoot, it’s a fictitious missing link in the case," he continued. "This has always been a trial in search of an imaginary crime and a disgraceful charade."

"This case has reasonable doubt written all over it," Jarrett concluded. "But the jury has been fed a litany of lies and deceptions by District Attorney Alvin Bragg that were endorsed by presiding Judge Juan Merchan. Together, they have trampled on the rights of the accused through the tyranny of mendacity and unchecked power."

Verdict unknown but could prove consequential

In a lengthy if more measured piece, Politico conducted a deep dive into the various plausible scenarios that could play out with the jury's verdict.

Those scenarios ranged from "fairly good -- but not overwhelming" odds that former President Trump will be convicted to the "slim" possibility that all 12 jurors will vote unanimously to convict him, with a "very real chance" in between that at least one juror will discredit the prosecution's argument and decline to convict, with the end result being a hung jury, a mistrial, and "a de facto victory for Trump."

Newsweek reported that, at least according to one recent poll from Marquette Law School, both Trump's legal and political future are riding on that eventual verdict from the New York jury, as it could help sway how a consequential portion of voters cast their ballots in November.

Of the registered voters surveyed by Marquette, half were asked how they'd vote if Trump was convicted and the other half were asked how they'd vote if he was found not guilty. If convicted, Trump would lose to President Joe Biden by a count of 43-39%, but if found not guilty, Trump would prevail by a margin of 44-38%.