A plethora of legal experts have weighed in on the verdict in former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan hush money trial and what they said is not music to the ears of District Attorney Alvin Bragg.

The former president is set to be sentenced for the 34 convictions for falsifying business records in the first degree on July 11, but many experts believe the convictions will be successfully appealed, Fox News reported.

“I believe that the case will be reversed eventually either in the state or federal systems,” constitutional law attorney and Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said to the network.

“However, this was the worst expectation for a trial in Manhattan,” the expert said. “I had hoped that the jurors might redeem the integrity of a system that has been used for political purposes.”

“The trial is a target-rich environment for appeal. However, that appeal will stretch beyond the election,” he said.

“In the meantime, Democrats and President Biden can add ‘convicted felon’ to the political mantra,” he said.

Former federal prosecutor John Malcolm said that the jury must have believed serial perjurer Michael Cohen, the former Trump attorney, which he has a tough time believing.

“The jury obviously ended up believing Michael Cohen, which is something I have a hard time conceiving since Michael Cohen has lied every time he has been under oath in the past and admitted that he hates Donald Trump, blaming him for all his problems, stole from him, and will profit from this conviction,” he said.

But Syracuse University College of Law professor Gregory Germain appeared to blame the former president’s attorneys for botching the case, saying that it was “a terribly risky strategy for Trump to focus on Michael Cohen’s credibility rather than focusing on the convoluted legal basis for the claims.”

“It’s not clear to me what they expected the jury to believe – that Michael Cohen paid $125,000 of his own money to Stormy Daniels without Trump’s knowledge and promise of reimbursement? They did not present an alternative theory that makes any sense, so of course they believed Cohen,” he said.

The professor said it would have been wiser to present the case “that the records could not have been falsified to defraud the voters in the 2016 election because the records were falsified in 2017 after the election was over, and the records were not public or known by the public.”

“I don’t know how well the legal issues were preserved for appeal or why they didn’t focus on the legal issues. It may be that the judge wouldn’t let the defense make those points. But there are many issues for appeal,” he said.