Trump assassin attempt case: Routh rests defense as prosecutors build broader case

MIAMI — A federal judge in Fort Pierce, Florida, signaled Monday that the defense of Ryan Routh, the 59-year-old who is accused of attempting to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald Trump at a West Palm Beach golf club, could be nearing its end as the government presses ahead with its case. Routh, who has chosen to represent himself, told U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon that he would not take the stand in his own defense, a decision that, if carried to conclusion, would pave the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh faces multiple charges, including attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, and firearm offenses. If convicted on the counts, he could face a life sentence. The decision not to testify comes after weeks of testimony from prosecutors that have laid out a detailed timeline of events leading up to the 2024 incident at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach and the days that followed. Cannon asked whether Routh had had enough time to consider his decision and whether he wished to consult standby counsel; he replied that he was sure. Prosecutors then asked for a lunch-hour to decide whether they would call rebuttal witnesses. If none are called, the defense would be expected to rest within hours, setting the stage for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

Routh opened his defense with a narrow slate of witnesses. Michael McClay, a gun specialist with a long background in military and law enforcement, testified as his sole expert. McClay confirmed he had been subpoenaed and testified, but indicated he did not speak on Routh’s behalf. The questioning focused on the operability and limitations of the rifle at issue, an SKS rifle, and whether it could strike a target at about 375 yards. McClay said the rifle’s effectiveness depended on the shooter, and he acknowledged that, in principle, the weapon could cause harm at that distance if fired with enough accuracy. During cross-examination by prosecutors, McClay conceded that the rifle could injure a person at that distance under certain conditions.

Routh’s questions to McClay were occasionally marked by long pauses, and at one point he mused aloud about needing to organize his questions to avoid confusion. In an unusual turn for a federal criminal trial, Routh also sought to introduce two character witnesses to bolster his portrayal of himself as peaceful and community-minded. Before former colleague Marshall Hinshaw and family friend Atwill Milsun took the stand, Cannon cautioned about the risks of character testimony, warning that it can invite aggressive cross-examination that could backfire on the defense. Prosecutors had indicated they would limit questions aimed at personal relationships. Hinshaw testified that Routh was well-liked and that there would be no reason to think he would harm anyone; Milsun echoed that Routh had contributed to the local community and appeared to possess a generally amiable disposition.

The defense also peppered witnesses with offbeat lines that drew raised eyebrows from the judge. At one point, Routh asked Milsun whether he had ever met Tony Hawk and floated an offer to host an international festival in Taiwan. Cannon cut off the questioning, telling Routh to focus on questions relevant to the case. On cross, prosecutors pressed Milsun about whether he was aware of Routh’s conduct toward an employee during a separate incident, to which Milsun said he had not known about it. The witnesses acknowledged they had not spoken with Routh for years, underscoring the constrained nature of the defense’s case.

Remarkably, Routh suggested a possible new exhibit—a “flashlight item”—but Cannon said he would need to lay a proper foundation and defer to standby counsel if necessary. He described the item as a “brand new item we just created,” but the judge ordered him to return to the questioning of his witness and to defer any novel exhibits until a proper foundation could be laid. The materials he had previously proposed—books authored by Routh, handwritten drawings, and Eagle Scout awards—remained on the docket, but Cannon warned that they could not be admitted without appropriate foundation.

By contrast, the government has built its case over nearly two weeks, presenting 38 witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, including extensive forensics, FBI testimony, and Secret Service documentation. Prosecutors detailed digital and physical breadcrumbs linking Routh to the purchase of the rifle and to the Trump club in the weeks before the alleged attempt. FBI DNA analysts testified that Routh’s DNA was found on the rifle scope grip, a glove, a bungee cord, and a bag recovered from the “sniper’s nest” near the sixth hole, where the defense contends the shooting would have occurred. In presenting its case, the government walked jurors through cellphone data, license-plate records, surveillance footage, and other corroborating material that prosecutors argued connected Routh to Trump’s movements in the days and weeks leading to the incident.

Cannon, though visibly frustrated at times, left open the possibility that Routh could choose to testify later in the trial, a decision that would come with the risk of cross-examination and Fifth Amendment considerations. The judge pressed Routh on whether he had made any final determination about testifying, to which he responded that he needed more time, prompting Cannon to reiterate the need for a timely decision since the defense’s case could be closing soon. The defense’s rests, if they come, would clear the way for closing arguments and jury deliberations.

With the defense nearing its end, prosecutors signaled they would call rebuttal witnesses if needed, but the lunch-break decision on that point remained unsettled as of mid-afternoon. The trial is proceeding in Fort Pierce, Florida, with closing arguments expected Tuesday or Wednesday at the latest, followed by jurors’ deliberations. The courtroom has become a stage for a high-profile national political case that centers on the safety of a presidential candidate and the integrity of the federal process in the lead-up to a national election.