The Conversation is a news organization – but we don’t have reporters on staff. Instead, scholars are our reporters. They write stories about issues and events in the news from their perspective as experts. In a regular newsroom, an editor would decide what story needed to be covered and would assign a reporter to do the story. The Conversation’s editors also decide what stories should be covered, but then we get to pick our writers from among the country’s most qualified authorities on the subject.

There are a gazillion reporters covering Donald Trump’s hush-money trial in New York. At The New York Times alone, you’ll find several reporters live-blogging the trial’s most minute details, including when Trump’s eyes have closed and what expressions can be seen on jury members’ faces. This week’s trial coverage began at The Conversation with a story by Harvard Law School professor Ronald Sullivan, an expert on criminal law and trial advocacy. Sullivan focused on what he calls “the most important single event of a trial” – the opening statements by attorneys for the prosecution and defense.

“Academic psychologists tell us that between 65% and 75% of jurors make up their minds about a case after the opening statement,” writes Sullivan. “What’s even more incredible is that 85% of those jurors maintain the position they formed after the opening statement once all evidence is received and the trial is closed.”

That is indeed incredible. And learning about facts like this is why I love working with the scholar-reporters at The Conversation.

Also in this week’s political news:

• Arizona life in 1864 when abortion ban was in force
• How Trump is trying to use hush-money trial to his advantage
• How funding Ukraine benefits US