Both the prosecution and defense have rested their cases in the trial of a Hillary Clinton campaign lawyer, Michael Sussmann, according to press reports.

Mr. Sussmann, a lawyer for Secretary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, did not testify related to charges regarding the origin of claims of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, in which Donald Trump defeated Mrs. Clinton to become the 45th U.S. president. The charges were filed as part of a probe by Special Counsel John Durham.

Mr. Sussmann’s indictment and trial have raised potentially damning questions over Clinton campaign officials’ alleged attempts to malign Mr. Trump as being a pawn of Russia during the 2016 campaign. The trial also opens the door to further legal questions about the extent of Mrs. Clinton’s involvement with her campaign’s tactics.

Mr. Sussmann is charged with one count of making a false statement to the FBI, which carries a potential prison term of up to five years. Mr. Sussmann has pleaded not guilty.

A guilty verdict would likely validate the suspicions of Republicans who backed Mr. Durham’s investigation, as well as Mr. Trump’s accusations of institutional bias.

An acquittal would cast doubt on the value and necessity of the probe, as Mr. Sussmann is the only individual charged to have been tried thus far.

Mrs. Clinton was potentially implicated by the testimony of her former campaign manager, Robby Mook, who testified that Mr. Sussmann leaked the allegations against Mr. Trump’s campaign to Slate under the former senator’s direction.

“The mere mention of Clinton’s name sent shockwaves through Washington,” a law professor at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley, said of the trial in an article for the Hill. “In past scandals, the Clintons have always evaded direct responsibility as aides were investigated or convicted, from the Whitewater land dealings to cattle futures.”

“For all the people who may not be fans of Donald Trump on the other side of the political aisle, this is about Donald Trump, but it’s also not about Donald Trump,” Representative Byron Donalds said on Fox Business Thursday. If “they can do that to him, they can do it to anyone.” 

The charge against Mr. Sussmann stems from a September 19, 2016, meeting he had with FBI investigators in which he presented data showcasing supposed communication between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Alfa-Bank, a Russian-based organization, according to the Department of Justice.

“Sussmann had requested the meeting to provide the General Counsel with certain data files and ‘white papers,’” the department stated. The files allegedly contained intelligence connecting the Trump Organization to Alfa-Bank.

Mr. Sussmann claimed that he was not presenting the information on behalf of a client, according to the indictment — a claim a former FBI general counsel testified he recalled being told with “100 percent confidence,” according to CNN.

Prosecutors accuse Mr. Sussmann of actually offering the information on behalf of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, which would mean he lied to federal investigators, the indictment notes.

Mr. Mook testified last Friday that it was Mrs. Clinton who approved the provision of this information to Slate, news reports say.

The article, titled “Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?” was published in Slate on October 31, 2016, eight days before the 2016 presidential election.

On Thursday, jurors were told by the judge not to treat the case as a referendum on whether the allegations against Mr. Trump’s campaign are merited, or to infer guilt from Mr. Sussmann’s indictment under implication by Mr. Durham’s probe.

“An indictment is not evidence of any kind,” District Judge Christopher Cooper said, according to Fox News. Judge Cooper added that jurors “may not draw any inference of guilt from it.”