Editor’s note: Norman Eisen is a CNN legal analyst and editor of .Trying Trump: A guide to his first election interference criminal trial” He served as an advisor to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment and trial of then-President Donald Trump. The views expressed in this commentary are his own.read more opinions On CNN.
CNN
—
Friday was a relatively quiet day in former President Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial. Prosecutors have introduced a series of additional witnesses to introduce documents and records and are awaiting testimony from former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen on Monday.
I took advantage of the relative calm to read the diary for the 15th day of this courtroom session about what I’ve seen each day: what Trump’s lawyers have done for their client. I wanted to dedicate myself to a great job. That’s true whether he and Judge Juan Melchan, who on Thursday made unfairly critical comments about the defense’s failure to object to sordid evidence, appreciate it or not.
First, we need to evaluate the defense according to the circumstances of the case, but they are faced with a difficult scenario. Witness after witness, document after document, prosecutors have painstakingly gathered evidence for his two parts of the case. It alleges that in 2016, there was a conspiracy to pay hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels and undermine the integrity of the election. Her alleged relationship with Trump was kept private in the interest of the Trump campaign and was allegedly covered up in 2017 by her fake invoices and other documents, many of which included Trump’s own information. It had a signature on it. Trump has pleaded not guilty to her charges.
And all of that evidence was presented to a jury in Manhattan, where Biden won 86.7% of votes compared to just 12.3% for Trump.
Having worked as a criminal defense attorney all my life (primarily), I believe that the defense team here has met this challenge as well as, in fact, exceeded my expectations. Given the facts, the law, and the jury, it is unlikely that they will receive an outright acquittal. That’s certainly a possibility, but looking at the evidence presented and the jury’s reactions to it every day, the consistent focus even during the most boring presentation of accounting books makes it seem like a distant story. I can think of it. (To be fair, though, the defense hasn’t made its case yet.)
So the defense team seems shrewd to do the next best thing: defend one angry juror to prevent a conviction. A conviction (or acquittal) must be unanimous. This means that the stubborn resistance of just one person could undermine unanimity and lead to a miscarriage of justice. That’s definitely what they’re aiming for.
I think that explains the lengthy cross-examination of adult film actress Stormy Daniels this week. Ms. Stormy struggled during her direct examination Tuesday, with her testimony at times appearing inauthentic and the judge clearly annoyed that she volunteered unnecessary sordid details.
Additionally, the defense listed all the reasons why Daniels cannot be trusted, including bias (having her testify that she hates Trump) and financial motivations (having her admit that she was making money off the scandal). And that she was lying (pointing out how her own story had changed) and extorting her Trump (then-lawyer Keith for her alleged shakedown) It is suggested that he was working with Davidson.
If you want to get an acquittal, you’ll probably stop there and save your political capital with the jury for other disputes — especially since the question of whether there was an encounter is less important to the case. Because there isn’t. It is clear that money was paid, and as a matter of law, the case focuses on whether it was part of a criminal conspiracy to interfere with the 2016 election and was covered up with false documents in 2017. is guessing.
Nevertheless, the defense spent hours on Thursday (adjourned on Wednesday, as usual) dragging Daniels through the mud, trying to challenge every detail of the 2006 sexual contact allegations. . I found it alienating, and I suspect most of the jury felt the same way. But as one intelligent courtroom observer commented to me during my lunch break, if there’s even one juror who is already skeptical, Stormy’s combative but sometimes hard-to-believe answers are There was a lot of evidence to corroborate her claims (including testimony that implied her claims). (can talk to the dead).
What about Marchan’s repeated criticisms of the defense for not rebutting Daniels during his testimony? President Trump’s lawyer Susan Necheres certainly knows how to object, and she did so when it made sense to do so. Many were supported. But if you object too often, you run the risk of actually emphasizing parts of the testimony and showing that you are concerned about it.
In Tuesday’s in-person inspection, it looked to me like Necheres was trying to strike that balance. I can always question personal choices in hindsight, knowing that I have been in that position myself. I did not think it was negligence and respectfully disagree with the judge’s second guess.
Of course, the client would be unhappy to hear that from the bench. He is famous for being tough on lawyers. However, the issue is not the lawyer’s response, but the facts. The defense takes advantage of weaknesses, and as a practitioner myself, it’s clear that this skill is high.
